,0- 



' .. c 



/, » 1 * \^ 



ro 






;;*.__ y^^dif-W s .-^ 



oN- 



.v\^' 



^> 



.^-^" 



,0 o 



'^r 



o5 '^> 



%.^' 
.-s^ %, 






i ' " <- '<-_; 









'A y 






,0 O^ 



•x^^- ■^.. -. 






Oo. 



■^ 







"% 


^,^ 




^^ "-%., 





.\^^ 



■\^' 



S\> -^'r 



o 



i 1 « * '^^ 






-J.^ 



.x\^ 






^OO^ 



V.5 "^i. 



^^^^■ 












nV^' -.. 



'\- 


■<f^ 




<^ 



a\ 



•-^ 









.^ -^^ 















>^;^"_; .%,'"■' ' V^^'''/'^!'^'' 






-J.^ 






-^/^ V^ 





















f^-, V'^ 















.V^^' -.. 












o>' 



^"^- 



■/', aX 



A' 



^A. V-JS' 



1 



pmmran Jlniiquartan Jloctei^ 



A Calendar of the Manuscripts 
of Col. John Bradstreet 




Jlmcrican ^niiiittatian ^cticfij 



A CALENDAE OF THE MAmJSCRIPTS 
OF COL. JOH]Sr BRADSTREET 

IN THE 
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY 



PREPARED FROM THE ORIGINALS 

UNDER DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE 

BY CHARLES HENRY LINCOLN 





"% 
f 



Worcester, Massachusetts 

Published by the Society 

1 90S 



THE DAVIS PRESS 
Worcester, Massachusetts 



Gift 

Tb-r^ Society 



.'CS^3 



Reprinted from the Proceedings of The American Antiquarian Society, April, 1908 



;:.-^ 



\0 ^4 








PREFATORY NOTE. 

The publication of this calendar of the manuscripts of 
Col. John Bradstreet in the Library of this Society follows 
the precedent set by the issuance of a similar list in 1907 
for the manuscripts of Sir William Johnson. It is a further 
step in the policy of describing some of the original auto- 
graph material for the study of American history which 
is here available. 

Bom in England in 1711, John Bradstreet spent the 
greater portion of his life in America. From 1745 when he 
participated in the Louisburg campaign he was active in 
maintaining British control in the colonies. His death 
in 1774 prevented the necessity of his taking sides in the 
struggle for American independence and left him to share 
with Sir William Johnson who died in the same year, the 
credit of a vigorous opposition to the interests of the French 
in America. If his judgment was not equal to his activity, 
his work well illustrated British policy in America during 
the period immediately preceding the outbreak of the 
American Revolution. 

The collection here calendared comprises six volumes 
of Diaries, Orderly Books etc., and one volume of over 
300 letters and other detached manuscripts. Each of the 
former volumes may be considered a collection in itself 
but their character is such as to preclude their division 
for listing purposes and each has been given but a single 
entry. In the exercise of a similar discretion the less 
important of the detached manuscripts have been com- 
bined when practicable and in other cases omitted, making 
a resultant calendar of but 206 entries. Although this 
method of treatment has necessitated the loss of many 
details the calendar remains a representative one in that 
it presents the essential features of the entire collection. 

The manuscripts consist primarily of the accounts and 
military papers of Colonel Bradstreet when ^Quarter-Master 



56 Prefatory Note. 

General at Albany, or when in command of the expeditions 
against Frontenac in 1758 and Detroit in 1764. They 
illustrate the difficulties attendant upon the gathering, 
sustaining and commanding Provincial troops at that time. 
Colonial jealousies are shown and many letters throw light 
upon the character of Bradstreet the man as well as the 
officer. As an appendix to the calendar there has been 
printed the argument, presented to the Lords of Trade and 
Plantation in 1771, upholding Bradstreet's claims to lands 
purchased from the Indians in 1769. This argument pre- 
sented in substantially the same form to the Governor and 
Council of New York in 1770, and used again in England in 
1773, states the ground upon which the Bradstreet grants of 
land in this State were, after a long contest, finally sustained. 
Occasional reference has been made to helpful manuscripts 
in the Sir William Johnson collection and this calendar is 
paged with and may be used in conjunction with the earlier 
issue. 

NATHANIEL PAINE, 
WALDO LINCOLN, 
FRANKLIN P. RICE, 

Library Committee. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Prefatory note ...... 55 

Abbreviations used . . . . .57 

Calendar of Manuscripts . . . . .59 

Manuscript printed in full . . . .101 



ABBREVIATIONS USED. 

A. D. — -Autograph Document. 
A. D. S. — Autograph Document Signed. 

D. S. — Document Signed. 

A. L. — Autograph Letter. 
A. L. S. — Autograph Letter Signed. 

L. S. — Letter Signed. 

[ ] — Information supplied. 

[ ? ]— Doubtful reading or information. 
*** — Omissions. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 59. 



THE COL. JOHN BRADSTREET 
MANUSCRIPTS. 



[1755.] [Bradstreet, John.] Oswego. Letter to [William] 
June. Shirley. Acknowledges two letters brought by 

carpenters and received Jun. 8; progress in boat 
building; rough character of the waters of the 
lake [Ontario]; need of more carpenters; French 
have passed on way to the Ohio country. Auto 
Draft. 2pp. 

[1755.] [Bradstreet, John. Oswego.] Letter to [William 
[June.] Shirley]. Acknowledges letter of June 15; is 
building boats as directed "with such alterations" 
as improve them; news of Shirley's coming 
given out by new arrivals; conditions at Niagara; 
reenforcements expected; considers himself equal 
to any exigency as he understands conditions 
thoroughly. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1755. [Bradstreet, John.] Oswego. Letter to William 
Jul. 20. Shirley. Acknowledges letter of Jul. 12; arrival 
of three companies from New Jersey; prevalence 
of the flux in camp ; flight of the French to Niag- 
ara. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1755. [Bradstreet, John.] Oswego. Letter to [William 
[Jul.] 24. Shirley]. Arrival of Capt. [Wilham] Douglass 
and party on 21st; no Indians come to camp; 
will strengthen fortifications until Shirley's 
arrival or until orders to contrary are received. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

On verso of same to same Jul. 20, 1755. 



60 American Antiquarian Society. 

1755. [Bradstreet, John. Oswego.] Letter to [William 
[Aug. 2.] Shirley]. An account of the work done by the 
troops at Oswego from June 1, 1755, to August 2 
following. Auto, draft. Ip. 

1755. Shirley, W[illiam.] Albany. Memorandum for 
Nov. 28. [John] Bradstreet. Is to grant furloughs to men 

enlisting in Shirley's regt. if he judges best, 
sending remainder to Schenectady with so much 
of their bounty money as is advisable; no more 
men to be raised for new regiments and men 
at Lake George to be enlisted under Sir William 
Pepperrell or in Shirley's own regiment; direc- 
tions as to building barracks and whale boats; 
is to settle accounts with Maj. [William] Hoar, 
to whom 500 dollars has been advanced for 
enlistments at Lake George. A. L. S. 2pp. 

1756. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [WiUiam] 
Apr. 6. Shirley. Has received word from Capt. Laforay 

[George Le Hunte?] tlii'ough Capt. [ ] Bradley 
that harbors on lake are "stopt" ; need of immed- 
iate and energetic movements to forestall the 
French; over 200 whale boats and many bat- 
teaux gone and Bradstreet plans to leave in 
three days. Auto. Draft. 2 pp. 

1756. Alexander, William. [Albany.] To John Brad- 

[Jul. 1.] street. Account for monies received and paid 

on batteau account March-June, 1756; balance 

due Alexander is £1450, 6s. 6d. N. Y. currency. 

D. S. 5pp. 

1756. Fairservice, James. [Albany.] To [Jolm Brad- 
Nov. 17. street]. Account against "His Majesty's Ser- 
vice" Mar. 4-Apr. 10, 1756. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1757. Loudoun, [John, Earl of.] New York. To John 
Mar. 8. Bradstreet. Commission as Captain in "His 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 61 

Majesty's Royal American Regiment. " Counter- 
signed J[ohn] Appy, and seal attached. D. S. Ip. 

1757. Kirkwood, James. Boston. To [Jolin Bradstreet.] 
Apr. 4. Account of sundries received on board snow 
Diamond by order of "Col" Bradstreet. A. D. S. 
Ip. 

1757. Kirkwood, James. Boston. To John Bradstreet. 
Apr. 5. Receipt for stores and provisions delivered on 
board snow Diamond. D. S. Ip. 

1757. Lothrop, Benjamin, jr. Boston. To John Brad- 
Apr. 5. street. Receipt for stores and provisions 
delivered on board ship Lyon. D. S. Ip. 

1757. Cartwright, Thomas. Boston. To John Bradstreet. 
Apr. 6. Receipt for stores and provisions delivered on 
board ship Boston. D. S. Ip. 

Under this date are two receipts similar to the above 
signed by Bartholomew Killoran and Andrew Newell, 
each for his own vessel. 

1757. Kirkwood, James. New York. To [Commanding 

Apr. 22. Officer at New York]. A Return of his Majesty's 

stores on board the snow Diamond. A. D. S. Ip. 

See: Kirkwood to John Bradstreet; Apr. 4 and 5, 1757. 

1757. Cartwright, Thomas. New York. To [John Brad- 
Apr. 23. street]. A manifest of the cargo received on 
board transport Boston with an account of 
provisions for the ship's use. A. D. S. Ip. 

1757. Hallowell, Benjamin, jr. and five others. Boston. 
Apr. 23. To [John Bradstreet]. Mensuration at Boston 
of following three transports with statement of 
their time of entrance into his Majesty's service : 
ship Two Brothers, William Wingfield, Master; 
ship Sheffield, J[ohn] Reed, Master; snow St. 
Peter, [Robert] Kennedy, Master. D. S. Ben- 



62 American Antiquarian Society. 

jamin Hallowell, jr., Ralph Hartt, Alexander 
Hunt, Peter McTaggart, William Welsh, George 
Wilson. Ip. 

1757. Reed, John. Boston. To John Bradstreet. 
Apr. 23. Receipt for stores delivered on board the ship 
Sheffield. D. S. Ip. 

1757. Kennedy, Robert. Boston. To John Bradstreet. 
Apr. 23. Receipt for stores delivered on board the snow 
St. Peter. D. S. Ip. and duplicate. 

1757. Collins, James. Boston. To John Bradstreet. 
May 9. Receipt for stores delivered on board the brigan- 
tine Mermaid. D, S. Ip. 

Under this date are eight receipts similar to the above, 
signed respectively by Patrick Connell. William Davis, 
Neil Gillis, Patrick James, Zephaniah Pinkham, William 
Scott, Peter Sinclair, and Ab[raham] Somes, each for his 
own vessel. 

1757. Gwynn, Anthony, Thomas Tannott, and Thomas 
May 9. Woodbridge. Newbury. To [John Bradstreet.] 
Have surveyed the following vessels with their 
equipment and certify the date of fitness of 
service ; Snow Charming Molly, Joseph Wadleigh, 
Master, May 5; Brigantine Antelope, Jeremiah 
Stanniford, Master, May 8. D. S. and attested. 
3pp. 

1757. Mugford, James. Marblehead. To John Brad- 
May 11. street. Receipt for stores delivered on board the 

ship Hooper for use of the Crown at New 
York. A. D. S. Ip. 

1758. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to James 
Mar. 13. Abercrombie. Arrival of carpenters from Col. 

Meservey [Nathaniel Meserve?] including many 
boys; will not be able to furnish 1200 boats by 
May 15; needs 100 more carpenters from New 
Jersey and Philadelphia. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 



The Col John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 63 

1758. [Bradstreet, John.] Letter to James Abercrombie. 
Mar. 24. Acknowledges letter of Mar. 18; 250 batteaux 
prepared to go with army to Crown Point; has 
raised 800 rangers for attack on Cadaraque but 
doubts if all will serve in another quarter; 
difficult to procure men for general service 
because of large bounty offered by colonies for 
provincial enUstments; bounty offered by [Wil- 
liam] Shirley; asks Abercrombie's plans and 
states need for provisions at Albany. Auto. 
Draft. 3pp. 

1758. Mortier, A[braham.] New York. Letter tO' John 
Mar. 26. Bradstreet. Has received from [Charles Ward] 
Apthorp an account of money advanced by 
order of [Maj. Genl. John Campbell, Earl] 
Loudoun or of Bradstreet, and from [Maj.] 
Genl. [James Abercrombie] a warrant for £3000 
in payment of account; warrant will serve to 
repay amounts advanced Col. [Nathaniel] 
Meserve for carpenters and batteau service; 
directions as to future accounting of Bradstreet 
and others; congratulates him on recent advance- 
ment. A. L. S. 2pp. 

1758. De Normandie, Daniel. [Albany.] To John 
May 4- Bradstreet. Account of all monies received 
Nov. 30. and paid for the batteau service by Daniel De 

Normandie under the direction of [Lt.] Col. 

John Bradstreet, Commander-in-Chief of all 

the batteau men. 1 vol. 

The volume is in 127 pages and contains in addition to 
De Normandie's accounts, 165 signed receipts from men 
in batteau service for monies received. 

1758. Comyn, Pieter. Fort Stanwix. Letter to [John 

Sept. 25. Bradstreet]. Expense incurred for wages and 

allowances to three officers and company of 71 

men enlisted by order of Brig. Genl. [John] 

Stanwix. D. S. Ip. 



64 American Antiquarian Society. 

1758. Bradstreet, John. Albany. Account for Pilots 

Nov. 15. and Interpreters. Account of monies paid for 

pilots and Indian interpreters upon the expedition 

to Cardaraque, with receipts for same. In ms. 

of clerk except signatures. Ip. and duplicate. 

1758. Apthrop, Charles Ward. Boston. Letter to John 
Nov. 25. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Nov. 12, 
enclosing [Abraham] Mortier's draft for 10,000 
dollars; has credited Bradstreet's account with 
draft and paid Capt. [Joshua] Loring £200 New 
York currency as directed; will look into matter 
of payment of James Otis. L. S. Ip. 

1758. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey] 
Dec. 31. Amherst. As desired sends state of batteaux; 

reasons for widely scattered location of boats. 
On verso is the statement showing number and 
location of available boats. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1759. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Feb. 4. Bradstreet. In reply to letter of Feb. 3 sends 

warrant for £3000; methods of recourse for the 
payment of this amount and low state of mil- 
itary chest at New York; Bradstreet to explain 
situation to [Thomas] Gage at once. L. S. 2pp. 

1759. Gage, Thomas. Albany. Letter to [Jolin] Brad- 
Apr. 19. street. Directs Bradstreet to pay certain speci- 
fied accounts amounting to £100, 16s. being the 
expenses for entertainment etc. for Indian 
scouting party sent out at Fort Edward. On 
verso are four receipts to Lt. George Coventry 
for various items of above accounts of date 
Apr. 21, May 28 and Jun. 24 (2) respectively. 
D. S. 2pp. 

1759. [Bradstreet, John. Albany.] Account of men at 
Apr. 24. Hospital in Albany. Account with His Majesty's 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 65 

hospital at Albany for 14 batteau men who were 
in the hospital at various times between Feb. 25 
and Apr. 24, 1759; total is £2.10d. In ms. of 
clerk. Ip. 

1759. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary OflB- 
May 11. cers [and whom it may concern.] Orders that 
bearers of letter be not ''stopt nor hindered 
on any acct. whatever" as they have provisions 
on batteaux; commissaries receiving or giving 
provisions to note same on letter. A. D. S. Ip. 

1759. [Bradstreet, John.] Schenectady. Letter to 
Sept. 2. [Thomas Gage]. Acknowledges letter of Aug. 
26; provisions accumulated; would have given 
Major [Gabriel] Christie charge of transportation 
had his orders from Maj. Genl. [Jeffrey] Amherst 
allowed him to do so; will report to latter and 
do as directed by him in the matter. Auto. 
Draft. 2pp. 

1759. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Sept. 21. Amherst]. Regrets that letter of Sept. 15, just 
received, shows fear of lack of provisions; has 
no fear himself; sends [Lt. George] Coventry's 
return of provisions gathered, and states that 
more can be raised. Auto. Draft. 3pp. 

1759. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Sept. 21. Bradstreet. Has sent money to Albany to pay 
his note for £2500 to Bradstreet, so that he may 
have cash if he prefers. A. L. S. Ip. 

1759. Appy, J[ohn.] Crown Point. Letter to [John] 
Oct. 16. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Oct. 11 to 
[Maj.] Genl. [Jeffrey Amherst] and refers him to 
latter's letter of Oct. 10 for instructions as to the 
sick in the New York regiment; other questions 
left to Bradstreet's discretion until return of 



66 American Antiquarian Society. 

Amherst; some information from letters of Brig. 
Genl. [Thomas] Gage. L. S. Ip. 

1759. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
Dec. cers [and whom it may concern.] Orders to 

pass provision batteaux; on delivery of goods 
acknowledgment to be made and deficiency 
to be noted on orders; names of men engaged in 
carrying provisions from Little Falls [Whitehall, 
N. Y.] to Fort Herkimer. A. D. S. Ip. 

1760. Stout, Jonathan and 102 others. Elizabeth Town, 
Jan. 1. [N. J.] To Capt. John Riky. Power of attor- 
ney to receive and receipt for wages due in the 
batteau service. D. S. 3pp. 

1760. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Feb. 4. Amherst]. Sends two sworn waggon accounts 
to "show what little faith, truth or honor there 
are in complaints so frequently made"; disputes 
regarding demands of previous year; urges that 
preparations be begun at once for any campaign 
intended in 1760. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1760. Mortier, A[braham.] New York. Letter to [John] 
Feb. 18. Bradstreet. Regrets his inability to pay balance 
of Bradstreet's warrant for £12,63 1.19s. 6d. 
in favor of [Capt. Daniel] De Normandie but 
military chest is not able to advance that sum. 
A. L. S. Ip. 

1760. Appy, J[ohn.] New York. Letter to Thomas 
Feb. 21. Hancock. Notifies Hancock of arrival of dis- 
patches for [Maj.] Genl. [Jeffrey Amherst] and 
circular letters for the several governors calling 
for new levies for approaching campaign ; specifies 
various letters sent Hancock to be forwarded; 
acknowledges letter of Jan. 16 and thanks him 
for articles sent. L. S. Ip. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 67 

1760. Mortier, Abraham, New York. Letter to [John] 
Mar. 9. Bradstreet. In response to orders from [Maj.] 
Genl. [Jeffrey Amherst] has endeavored to 
obtain for Bradstreet a credit of £8000 in New 
England; [Charles Ward] Apthorp informs him 
that he has no money at Boston and there is none 
available at New York; small amounts elsewhere. 
A. L. S. 2pp. 

1760. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Joshua] 
Mar. 18. Loring. In reply to letter of Mar. 13, states 
» that "the King's service requires 50 good ship 

carpenters over and above the 50 mentioned" 
to build batteaux at Albany; has acquainted 
the General [Amherst] with his demand "where- 
fore for the Publick and your own sake don't 
fail." Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1760. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Mar. 30. Amherst]. Provisions received from contractors 
and application made to Brig. Genl. [Thomas] 
Gage for troops to move them; no cedar boards 
arrived but 29 of [Joshua] Loring's carpenters 
are at work [on boats]. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1760. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Sept. 14. Amherst, Montreal.] Congratulates him on the 
capture of Montreal and the reduction of Canada; 
outlines work of forwarding provisions; amount 
at Oswego and amount reported by [James] 
DeLancey as being at or near Albany; requests 
a warrant for £10,000 by bearer Capt. [Philip] 
Schuyler. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1760. [Bradstreet, Jolin.] Albany. Letter to [Philip 
Oct. 23. Schulyer]. Thanks him for proffered services 
in settling his [Bradstreet' s] accounts; hopes 
that [William] Pitt will remember his [Brad- 
street's] service in the subjugation of Canada; 



68 American Antiquarian Society. 

suggests that the command of a regiment or 
the Governorship of New York would be an 
appropriate compensation; hopes [Schuyler] will 
recommend him for such an appointment; "the 
American world await with impatience" his 
reward "and if I get nothing they will be no 
less surprised than myself. " Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1760. Clark, Joel. [Albany.] To John [Bradstreet] 

Nov. 11. Sworn lists of batteau men serving under Clark's 

command Jun. 22 [to date]; first list contains 

11 names, second list 7 names, third list 34 

names. Two lists are sworn to by Clark. D. S. 3pp. 

1760. [Bradstreet, Jolm.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Dec. 7. Amherst]. By Act of Provincial Assembly [of 
New York] all persons impressing horses etc. 
for the war are held personally responsible; 
trouble occasioned his agents by this law; gives 
instances; ingratitude of people to British for 
protecting them; they give nothing without 
being paid for it "being spurred on by a nest of 
Harpies"; asks that something be done for the 
relief of his agents, who are suffering for impress- 
ments made in the line of duty. Auto. Draft. 3pp. 

1760. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Dec. 8. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Nov. 30 
enclosing [Maj.] Genl. [Jeffrey] Amherst's war- 
rant for £8000 in his [Bradstreet's] favor with 
receipts for same; will see that all his bills are 
paid promptly as those in favor of Capt. [George] 
Middagh and Col. Van Schack [Capt. Goose 
Van Schaick?] have been; ship Dover brought 
no money from Great Britain; other mihtary 
news. A. L. S. Ip. 

1760. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to John 
Dec. 28. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Dec. 21; 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 69 

has received complaints against Lt. [George] 
Coventry from Sheriff [Goose] Van Schaicl<: but 
waits to hear both sides before taking action 
and will present what Bradstreet has said in 
Coventry's behalf; is about to apply for com- 
mission for [Abraham] Cuyler as Deputy Post- 
master at Albany, A. L. S. 2pp. mutilated. 

1761. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to John 
Jan. 17. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Jan. 12 
by [Cornelius] Cuyler; paid him balance of Brad- 
street's account as directed after charging 
exchange; arrival of the Fowey with some money; 
congratulates Bradstreet on victory of [Frederic] 
King of Prussia over Count [Leopold Joseph 
Maria von] Daun [at Torgau, Nov. 23, 1760]. 
A. L. S. 2pp. 

1761. Mortier, Abraham. New York. To John Brad- 
Jan. 17. street. Statement of account Nov. 19, 1760 to 
' date, showing expenditure of [Maj.] Genl. [Jeffrey] 
Amherst's draft of Nov. 19 for £8000. A. D. 
S. 2pp. 

1761. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Feb. 2. Amherst]. No unnecessary labor to be spent 
upon the Hudson river barracks; has investigated 
claim of Cornelius Buys for batteau service in 
1756 and finds it baseless; notes as to condition 
of service; is obliged that [Philip] Schuyler is 
to be sent to England on first war ship or packet. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1761. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [Joshua] 
Mar. 9. Loring. Proposes that provisions be moved 
from Louisburg by traders from Boston to Quebec ; 
Loring is to notify Boston captains through 
Thomas Hancock and to inform Gov. [Edward] 
Whitmore [of Louisburg] of names of vessels 
engaged. Cont. Copy. Ip. 



70 American Antiquarian Society. 

1761. Butler, John. [Canawago.] Letter to Jellis Fonda. 
Apr. 26. Certificate of amounts of money given Fonda 
for payment of various persons and accounts. 
A. D. S. Ip. 

1761. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to John 
Nov. 4. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Oct. 31 ; 
had packed the money to be sent him in box 
and put it on board a sloop about to sail; various 
charges and accounts paid; amount sent. 
A. L. S. Ip. 

1761. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 

Nov. 5. Bradstreet. Encloses warrant of [Lt.] Genl. 

Sir Jeffrey Amherst for £8000 in his favor; 

requests that warrant be endorsed and returned 

with customary receipts. A. L. S. Ip. 

1761. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Nov. 15. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Nov. 9 and 
is much surprised at the movements of various 
provincial regiments; reports necessary from 
officers at Oswego and Fort Stanwix; has heard 
from Capt. [Joshua] Loring of loss of the Anson 
on Lake Ontario; encloses warrant for £6000; 
has promoted Lt. [Samuel] Bradstreet to a 
company in 40th regiment. L. S. 2pp. 

1761. Coventry, George. [Albany.] To [John Bradstreet]. 
[Dec. 7.] Account of monies paid to 45 men [names 
given] of 55th regiment employed in transpor- 
tation service at Lake George from Jul. 30 to Aug. 
12, 1761, with receipt for same. D. S. Ip. 

1761. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Dec, 16. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Dec. 11, 
enclosing order of [Lt. Genl.] Sir Jeffrey Amherst 
in Bradstreet's favor for £6000; various bills 
paid and the balance turned over to [John] Glen. 
A. L. S. Ip. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 71 

1762. Amherst, Sir [Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Feb. 10. Bradstreet. Arrival of the General Wall with 
letters for the army in New York and Canada; 
forwards letters with packets of his own for 
commanding officers at Fort George and the 
Governors in Canada. A. L. S. Ip. 

1762. Bergstrom, J [ ] G. Little Niagara. To 

"Feb. 29." [Jolm] Bradstreet. Certificate of impressment 

into the service of horses and cattle belonging 

to Stedman & Allen, with receipt of latter for 

wages paid. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1762. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 

May 17. Bradstreet. Encloses Capt. William Ogilvie's 

bill on John Stevenson in writer's favor for 

£1565; asks if bill is accepted. A. L. S. Ip. 

1762. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Nov. 8. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Nov. 3 

by [John] Cams, enclosing warrant of [Lt.] 
Genl. [Sir Jeffrey Amherst] in Bradstreet's favor 
for £5000; returns warrant for Bradstreet's 
endorsement. A. L. S. Ip. 

[1763.] Mortier, Abraham. [New York.] Letter to [John] 

[Jan. 9.] Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Bradstreet 

enclosing paper of Maj. [Robert] Rogers; financial 

dealings with Rogers and Bradstreet. A. L. S 

Ip. mutilated. 

1763. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John 
Mar. 21. Bradstreet]. Acknowledges letter of Mar. 14, 

enclosing warrant of [Lt.] Genl. [Sir Jeffrey 
Amherst]; warrant not so large as order given 
earlier; expects Bradstreet to make up the 
difference either in cash from next warrant 
received or by payment to Capt. [William] Wine- 
press. A. L. S. Ip. and Auto, duplicate 
enclosed in Mortier to Bradstreet, Apr. 9, 1764. 



72 American Antiquarian Society. 

1763. Cuyler, Abraham. Niagara River, Lake Erie. 
May 9. To [John] Bradstreet. Certificate that he has 
taken into the service a boat belonging to John 
Stedman. A. D. S. Ip. 

1763. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jejffrey 
May 23. Amherst.] Calls attention to encroachments 
made by the city of Albany upon lands which 
the Crown has used since 1758 for military 
purposes; claims of others rest on charter from 
the Governor ; considers it a good time to enforce 
the claim of the Crown; privileges granted the 
city by new charter; submits a copy of charter 
for consideration. Auto. Draft. 3pp. 

See: Bradstreet to Thomas Gage. Oct. 14, 1765. 

1763. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Jul. 28. Bradstreet. Awaits news from Detroit and the 
South; last reports from Maj. [Henry] Gladwin 
were favorable and Maj. [John] Wilkins will 
forward more as received; Havana returned to 
Spain; most of the English troops in West Indies 
will return to Europe but some may go to Canada ; 
advises Bradstreet to keep up connections 
with North and West if those sections are not 
restored to peace. L. S. 2pp. 

1763. Wilson, Jolin. Fort Ontario. To John Glen. 

Aug. 9. Certificate that John Bone brought load of 

artillery from Fort Stanwix to Fort Ontario. 
A. D. S. Ip. 

1763. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Aug. 20. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of 15th; satis- 
fied with work accomplished ; under new arrange- 
ment small posts are to be abandoned, so requests 
names of persons to whom they may be given 
and who can be relied upon to deliver them to 
the Crown in case of need. L. S. Ip. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 73 

1763. Maxwell, William. Schenectady. To Commissary 
Aug. 20. Officers, Orders to pass provision batteaux 
for various posts. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1763. Amherst, Sir Jeffrey. New York. Letter to [John] 
Aug. 28. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of Aug. 21 
with enclosures regarding the Dutch church at 
Albany ; reports victory of Col. [Henry] Bouquet 
at Bushy Run [near Fort Pitt] over a large body 
of Indians; summary of losses on both sides; 
has ordered officers communicating with Fort 
Pitt to furnish no supplies to Indians and to 
allow no trader to go among them; has written 
[Maj.] Genl. [Thomas] Gage to prevent traders 
going up the St. Lawrence and Bradstreet is to 
allow none to go out from Albany until further 
orders. L. S. 2pp. 

See: Bradstreet to Thomas Gage. Oct. 14, 1765. 

1763. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Aug. 29. Amherst.] In obedience to letter of Aug. 20, 
will look out for proper persons to take charge 
of small posts ; movements of Lts. [James] Gamble 
and [Arthur] St. Clair; demand of Maj. [John] 
Wilkins for bedding at Niagara; needs at Detroit. 
Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1763. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] Brad- 
Sept. 19. street. Has paid and charged to his account a bill 
for £200 drawn on him by Mrs. Bradstreet and pre- 
sented by [William] Bayard ; latter received it from 
[Nathaniel] Wheelwright of Boston. A. L. S. Ip. 

1763. Detroit, Inhabitants of. [Detroit.] 
[Sept.?] Abstract of the losses of the inhabitants of 
Detroit by fire etc. during the summer of 1763; 
names of 20 persons given including one English- 
man and one interpreter, with amount of loss 
of each. Cont. Ms. Ip. 



74 American Antiquarian Society. 

1763. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Dec. 4. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letters of Nov. 22, 
25 and Dec. 2; warrant of [Lt. Genl.] Sir Jeffrey 
Amherst in his favor for £7000 shall be cashed 
and forwarded to him at Albany ; can send £5000 
in a few days and the remainder soon if there 
is pressing need; is much surprised that he has 
received no forage money for past three years; 
similar grants have been made to Col. [James] 
Robertson. A. L. S. 2pp. 

1763. Mortier, A[braham.] New York. Letter to [John] 
Dec. 12. Bradstreet. Is informed by [William] Bayard 
■in behalf of [Charles Ward] Apthorp that the 
whole of the warrant for £7000 shall be paid 
Bradstreet at Albany by [Abraham] Douw; 
states condition of Bradstreet's account with 
him. A. L. S, 2pp. 

1763. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to John 
Dec. 19. Bradstreet. Has supplied him with a credit 
for £1000 at Nathaniel Wheelwright's, Boston, 
in accordance with order of [Maj.] Genl. [Thomas] 
Gage, dated Dec. 17; acknowledges receipts for 
warrant of [Lt.] Genl. [Sir Jeffrey] Amherst in his 
favor for £7000; notes certain details relating 
to accounts and warrants, and bill of £50 to 
Mrs. Bradstreet. A. L. S. Ip. 

1763. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Jeffrey 
Dec. 20. Amherst]. Report received from Capt. [Joshua 

Loring as to transportation of provisions by 
boat to Niagara; others should be sent by land; 
need of ship carpenters, ironworkers and sup- 
plies at Oswego during the winter; Lt. Col. 
[William] Browning will furnish protection. 
Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1764. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Jan. 2. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter by Capt. [Josh- 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 75 

ua] Loring; regrets that Bradstreet was disa- 
appointed in receiving no money by messenger; 
former should draw an order on some person 
in New York or send messenger of his own; in 
either case Mortier will pay money on demand. 
A. L. S. Ip. 

1764. McKeen, Robert. Cherry Valley. To [John Brad- 
Jan. 27. street]. Certificate that Adam Brown has 
brought baggage for McKeen's company. A. D. 
S. Ip. 

[1764.] Macvicar, Duncan. [Albany.] Letter to John 
[Jan.] Bradstreet. Reports the mustering in of com- 

pany of Capt. [Nathaniel] Tyce; poor quality 
of the company. L. S. Ip. 

1764. Mortier, A[braham.] New York. Letter to [John] 
Feb. 6. Bradstreet. Sends him by [John] Kendrick 
£3000 in good paper money; has paid B[everly] 
Robinson £500 on account; requests acknow- 
ledgment on receipt of money sent. A. L. S. Ip. 

1764. Lamb, Anthony. [New York.] To John Brad- 
Mar. 19. street. Account for surveying implements fur- 
nished, £57, 15s. 6d. with receipt dated Jul 20. 
A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. Browning, William. Niagara. To [John Brad- 
Mar. 28. street.] Certificate of service performed by 
John Stedman with two horses, with receipt 
of Stedman, dated Mar. 20, 1766. D. S. 2pp. 

1764. Mortier, Abraham. New York. Letter to [John] 
Apr. 9. Bradstreet. Acknowledges letters of Apr. 1 and 
4; proceeds to make clear the accuracy of his 
account with Bradstreet, enclosing copy of 
letter of Mar. 21, 1763 in further explanation; 
thanks Bradstreet for lumber sent. A. L. S. 3pp. 



76 American Antiquarian Society. 

1764. Roberts, B[enjamin.] Niagara. To [John Brad- 
Apr. 11. street]. Certificate of services performed by- 
John Stedman with his horses, with receipt of 
Stedman dated Mar. 20, 1766. D. S. 2pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Letter to [Thomas Gage]. 
Apr. 30. Movements in preparation for the campaign 
against Detroit. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 14. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Sir Wil- 
May 5. liam Johnson]. Garrisons to be left in various 
New York posts; request Johnson to await him 
at Oswego. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 14. 

[1764,] Bradstreet, John. Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 

May 7. Gage. Provincial troops for the expedition 

against Detroit; understands that Sir William 

Johnson will bring Indian recruits. A. L. S. Ip. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 15. 

1764. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary 

May 7. Officers. Bearers of letter not to be stopped 

or hindered as they have provisions in their 

boats for [Lt.] Col. [John] Campbell and 17th 

regt ; boats in charge of John Miller. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Fort Ontario. Deserters from 
May troops commanded by. Descriptive list of men 

who deserted from the New York provincial 
troops after leaving Schenectady; six men are 
named from the company of Capt. [Richard] 
Rea, five from that of Capt. [John] Degarius, 
four from that of Capt. [John] Grant, two from 
that of Capt. [Henry] Dawson, two from that of 
Capt. [Alexander] Whyte. In ms. of a clerk. 2pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, Jolm.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
May 23. Gage]. Troops at Detroit lodged in houses of 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 77 

people; suggests that carpenters be sent from 
Albany to erect barracks; encloses return of 
80th regiment and of the garrison at Niagara; 
many companies are short of their complements. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1764. Duncan, Alexander. Albany. To [John Brad- 
May 25. street]. Certificate of names and companies of 
15 men employed as axe men, preparing timber 
for the Niagara carrying place, Mar. 26-Apr. 10, 
1764, with wages due each. D. S. Ip. 

1764. Bradstreet, John. Orderly Book. 
Jun. 27- Orderly Book of regiment commanded by Col. 
Nov. 29. Bradstreet at Forts Ontario, Niagara and Erie, 
as also at Detroit and Albany. 1 vol. 128pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Niagara. Letter to [Thomas] 

Jul. 12. Gage. Delay in campaign due to distmst of 

Indian troops; Sir William Johnson considers it 

unsafe to proceed at once; hopes to make a better 

report soon. Auto. Draft. 3pp. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts. 

1764. Bradstreet, John. Niagara. To Indian Traders 

Jul. 19. at Niagara. Proclamation granting liberty to 

trade with distant Indian Nations at Niagara 

and prescribing regulations under which such 

trade should be conducted. D. S. Ip. 

Tliis proclamation is reproduced in facsimile facing p. 59. 

[1764.] Luke, John. [Niagara.] 

[July] Plan of Fort Niagara. Auto. Ms. Ip. 

1764. McDougall, George. Detroit. To [John Bradstreet]. 

Aug. 31. Return of the detachment of 118 men from 

60th regiment under his command. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. Abbott, Edward. Detroit. To [Jolin Bradstreet]. 
Sept. 6. Receipt for stores with detailed list of same. 
A. D. S. 3pp. 



78 American Antiquarian Society. 

1764. Abbott, Edward. Detroit. To [John Bradstreet]. 
Sept. 10, Return of ordnance, ammunition and stores 
left for a supply to the garrison of Detroit. 
A. D. S. 5pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Detroit. Letter to [John 
Sept. [10?] Campbell]. Places town and colony of Detroit 
in his hands ; directions for protections of Indians 
in their rights but for careful watch over them 
as well; method of government to be modelled 
after that of Montreal; instructions for Capt. 
[William] Howard and Lt. [John] Sinclair left 
with him; any instructions from [Maj.] Genl. 
[Thomas] Gage to be followed at once. Auto. 
Draft. 4pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Detroit. Letter to [Thomas] 
Sept. 12. Gage. Gives an account of his negotiations at 
Detroit with various papers showing same in 
detail. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 16. 
See: Proclamation of Bradstreet, Jul. 19, 1764. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Detroit. Letter to [Thomas] 
Sept. 12. Gage. Outlines plans for maintenance of position 
at Detroit and the control of the surrounding 
Indians. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 17. 

[1764.] [Bradstreet, John.] Notes for expedition against 
[Sept.] Detroit. This volume contains many notes and 
records of use to an army moving against Detroit 
and the West. Among them are manuscript 
maps of the great lakes, the names and locations 
of various Indian tribes, notes as to camping 
places, etc. Some notes appear to have been 
made before the setting out of the expedition 
and others to have been added during its 
course. 1 vol. 27pp. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 79 

1764. Martin, S[amue]l. Detrqit. To [Jolin Bradstreet]. 
Oct 3. Receipt for £400 New York currency in pay- 
ment for books and merchandise for the Indians. 
A. D. S. In French. Ip. 

1764. [Bradstreet, Jolin.] Sandusky. Letter to [Thomas 
Oct. 5. Gage]. Is aroused over breaking of peace by 
Indians; Oneidas and Senecas the leaders; other 
details. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 17. 

1764. Jones, John. [Fort Edward.] To [John Brad- 
Oct. 8. street]. Return of stores dehvered at Fort 
George and Fort Edward. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
Oct. 12. cers. Pass for bearers with bill of lading of 
supplies for Fort Ontario. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. LeHunte, George, [Sandusky.] To [John Brad- 
Oct. 14. street]. Weekly return of light infantry com- 
manded by Maj. Le Hunte. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. McDonald, William. [Sandusky.] To [John Brad- 
Oct. 14. street]. Weekly return of the New Jersey 
battalion. D. S. Ip. 

1764. Walton, Joseph. [Sandusky.] To [John Bradstreet]. 
Oct. 14. Weekly return of detachment of royal artillery 
under his command. A. D. S. Ip. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Niagara. Letter to [Thomas 

Nov. 4. Gage]. Encloses copies of nine letters giving 

summary of each in an attempt to justify his 

conduct during the Detroit expedition and 

return to Niagara. Auto. Draft. 4pp. 

1764. Walton, Joseph. [Albany] To [Francis CoUy- 

Nov. 19. son]. Certificate of use of three horses for 

fourteen miles, with receipt by Collyson to 



80 American Antiquarian Society. 

Bradstreet dated Jan, 9, 1767 for payment in 
full of above account. D, S. 2pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 

Nov. 20. Gage]. Acknowledges letter of Oct. 26; attempts 

to explain parts played by various Indian tribes 

during and after the peace of Detroit. Auto. 

Draft. 3pp. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 

Nov. 21. Gage. Transmits record of Court of Inquiry 

on claims of men drafted from the 80th to the 

46th regiment ; other matters. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Nov. 25. Gage. Acknowledges dispatches received on 
the 24th; Maj. [Richard?] Daly takes down men 
of 65th regiment and will deliver this letter; 
proposed distribution of forces; Provincials and 
Canadians at Oswego. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 

Nov. 29. Gage. Trouble over payment of men engaged 

[Nov. 14?] by order of Gage; pay-master of New York 

battalion refused to pay men; hopes Gage will 

set matters to rights. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

See: letters of Feb. 2 and Feb. 25, 1765. 

1764. Robinson, Beverly. New York. To John Brad- 
Dec. 17. street. Account of monies paid by Col. Brad- 
street for pitch, tar, etc. sent to Albany for 
service of the Crown from Mar. 26 to Oct. 13, 1764. 
D. S. 3pp. 

1764. Hill, Launcelot. Albany. To Jolm Bradstreet. 
Dec. 23. Account of monies paid to 19 men of 55th regi- 
ment employed in carpentry or batteau service. 
Account is from Sept. 19 to Oct. 3, 1764, and 
is receipted by Hill. D. S. Ip. 



The Col John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 81 

1764. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Dec. 24. Gage]. Acknowledges letter of Dec. 15 ; supposes 
he is free to tell officers that Gage will not forward 
their petition as to land at Detroit; encloses 
return from Capt. [Hugh] Arnot of 46th regiment 
commanding at Oswego; would have sent high- 
landers to Fort George but Gage's orders forbade 
it; Capt. [William] Winepress will march away 
as soon as road is passable. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

[1764.] [Bradstreet, Jolm. Albany]. Letter to [Thomas 
[Dec?] Gage]. Plan for conciliation of Indians in 
Northern districts of North America; recom- 
mends distribution of agricultural implements, 
horses, etc. among them and the settlement 
of missionaries as was done by the French; 
estimates the expense and suggests that the 
whole affair be conducted by the Crown and 
not by the colonies; considers the Oneidas and 
Hurons as best tribes on which the experiment 
should be first tried. Auto. Draft. 4pp. 

[1764?] [Bradstreet, John. Albany]. Letter to [Thomas 
Gage]. Encloses accounts of Baxter and Hum- 
phrey with original receipts of individual wagon- 
ers employed by that firm in the public service; 
vouches for the accounts; believes that even 
[James] Livingston can find nothing to find 
fault with in them. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1765. Christie, John. Fort George. To [John Bradstreet]. 

Jan 2. Certificate of service performed by Peter Fonda 

in transporting troops in British service, with 

receipt by Fonda dated Oct. 8, 1766. D. S. 2pp. 

1765 Degrov, [Michel.] Albany. To [John] Bradstreet. 
Jan 23. Two receipts for £7 and £27, payment for 
services as interpreter to Indians on campaign 
[of 1764]. D. S. 2pp. 



82 American Antiquarian Society. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Feb. 2. Gage. Encloses monthly return of 46th regi- 

ment and state of garrison at Niagara received 
from Lt. Col. [Jolm] Vaughan; condition of 
New York volunteers enlisted by Bradstreet 
at Gage's order; £3250 currency due these 
troops and they threaten to sue writer for that 
amount; having law and justice on their side, 
Bradstreet suggests that these men be paid 
and the colony trusted to reimburse the money. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

See following entry and references. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Feb. 25. Gage]. Acknowledges letter [of Feb?] with war- 
rant; regrets that Gage will not provide money 
for payment of New York volunteers; details 
circumstances under which he recruited them 
and awkward place in which he finds himself, 
as both British and Colonial authorities refuse 
to reimburse him; case the same regarding 
money spent necessarily on the Indians; gives 
testimony of Maj. [William] Hogan that men 
served in British army; money due for batteau 
service also; poor condition of wagons and of 
cattle at Albany. Auto. Draft. 3pp. 

See: same to same, Nov. 29, 1764, and Feb. 2, 1765; also 
Bradstreet to Shelburne, Nov. 2, 1766. 

[1765?] [Gage, Thomas. New York.] Letter to [John 
[Feb.?] Bradstreet]. Articles in "A Brief State of the 
Circumstances relating to Colonel Bradstreet's 
enlisting 107 men for the New York Battalion 
in 1764 which the General objects to. " In ms. 
of Gabriel Maturin, Secy, to Maj. Genl. Gage, 2pp. 
A copy of this manuscript was enclosed by Brad- 
street in letter to Lord Shelburne, Nov. 2, 1766. 

See preceding entry and Bradstreet, John, Account of 
Enlistments, Nov. 2, 1766. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 83 

1765. Maitland, Richard. New York. 'To [John] 
Mar. 14. Bradstreet. Directions for sending cargoes of 
stores or provisions from any of the King's 
magazines. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 

Mar. 22. Gage. Winter allowances to men cutting boat 

timber or gathering hay; carriage of provisions; 

report from Capt.-Lt. [Patrick] Balneaves of 

conditions at Fort Edward. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1765. Fonda, Jellis & Co. [Albany.] To [John Brad- 
Mar. 23. street]. Accounts against the Crown for pro- 
visions and transportation during 1764, with 
receipts by Fonda to Bradstreet for payment 
in full. A. D. S. 2pp. 

[1765.] Glen, Cornelius. [Schenectady.] To [Commissary 

[Apr. 19] Officers and whom it may concern]. Orders 

to pass bearers, William Sinewood and five 

others in two batteaux loaded with naval stores 

for Fort Ontario. A. D. S. 2pp. 

Attached are notes of journey of batteaux. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Apr. 25. Gage. Explains distribution of liquor and other 
presents among the Indians and requests reim- 
bursement for money thus expended. Auto. 
Draft. Ip. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts. 

1765. Arnot, Hugh. [Niagara.] To [John Bradstreet]. 
Apr. 30. Certificate of service of non-commissioned officers 
and privates of the 46th regt. employed Nov. 1, 
1764 to date in Quarter Master General's dept. 
Account for each of seven companies is signed 
by officer of company and the whole account, 
£176, 18s. 6d. is countersigned by Arnot. The 
account bears receipt of Cornelius Cuyler dated 
Mar. 6, 1766. A. D. S. 2pp. 



84 American Antiquarian Society. 

1765. Albany, Dutch Church. [Albany.] To John Brad- 
April, street. Church account against Bradstreet for 
£12, lis. 2d. payable to Whitehead Hicks in 
behalf of the church. The account is made 
out in the name of the minister, elders and 
deacons of the church and accompanying it 
is a receipt for the payment of the account, 
dated Nov. 12, 1766, signed by E[ilardus] 
Westerlo jr. D[eputy] W[arden]. D. S. 2pp. 

[1765.] [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
[April?] Gage]. Forwards letters by express; is about 
to send provisions to Fort Stanwix in large 
quantity unless this be considered unwise and 
order countermanded [by Gage]; considers the 
French ''at the bottom of this Indian affair 
and the Five Nations as ripe for putting their 
grand scheme into execution as any" [other 
Indians]. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1765. Grant, A[llan?] Schenectady. To [John Brad- 
May 2. street]. Certificate of services of Samuel Staats 
in transporting naval stores. A. D, S. Ip. 

1765. Glen, John. Sch[enecta]dy. To the Commissary 
May 3. Officers [and whom it may concern]. Order to 
pass bearers with provision batteaux; if goods 
are delivered receipt to be given and any defi- 
ciency to be noted on order. A. D. S. Ip. 

Above is followed by bill of lading of batteaux in charge 
of Evert Van Gis; six batteaux loaded by Van Gis and 
eighteen others, all to be delivered at Oswego. 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To "John" [Jellis] 
May 8. Fonda. Certificate that Fonda is in charge of 
engineer stores to be delivered at Fort Ontario, 
with directions that he be not delayed on any 
account and that receipt for delivery be made 
out by officer receiving stores. Attached are 
receipts of David Buffington dated May 20 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 85 

for goods, and of Fonda, dated Jul. 23, 1766, 
for money in payment of services. A. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Demler, George. Fort Stanwix. To John Glen. 

May 22. Certificate of services in transporting stores, 

performed by William Quin, with receipt of 

John Monier, dated Nov. 1, 1766, in payment 

of above services. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1765. Etherington, George. Fort George. To John Brad- 
May 23. street. Certificate of services in transporting 
baggage, performed by Charles McKay and 
duplicate in favor of Samuel Dox. Attached 
are receipts by Guert Van Schoonhoven, dated 
Jul. 19. A. Ds. S. 2pp. each. 

1765. Cooke, John. Fort George. To Henry Dowlar 
May 24. and two others. Certificate to Henry Dowlar, 
Andrew [Andris] Johnson and William Peters 
for provisions from Halfmoon with receipt by 
Johnson, dated Aug. 13, 1766, in full of account. 
A. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Vaughan, John. Niagara. To John Bradstreet. 
May 24. Encloses bill of John Stedman against Brad- 
street for services as wagon master at Niagara, 
1764-1765; certifies as to employment as stated 
and that bill should be paid by Bradstreet. 
On verso is receipt of Stedman [Feb.] 2, 1766 
for payment of above account. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
May 25. cers [and whom it may concern]. Directions 
for passing bearers of letter with provision 
batteaux; deficiencies to be noted; goods to 
be delivered to Douw Fonda by James Cary 
and five men and are for use of Indians. 
Attached are receipts of Fonda of May 26 and 
of Cornelius Cuyler of Nov. 6, in payment oi 
services rendered. A. D. S. Ip. 



86 American Antiquarian Society. 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
Jun. 11. cers [and whom it may concern]. Orders to 
pass bearers with provision batteaux; when 
goods are delivered, receipt is to be given and 
any deficiency noted on orders. Attached are 
bills of lading for six batteaux and receipt 
signed by Edward Smyth at Fort Stanwix 
Jun. 16 for goods fisted. A. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Mcintosh, George. Fort Edward. To [John] 

Jun. 14. Bradstreet. Certificate of services of John 

Fluree [Flower?] employed four and one-half 

days in repairing boat used as ferry near Fort 

Edward. A. D. S. Ip. 

During July, similar certificates of services performed 
were given Bradstreet regarding Martin Van Alstyn, John 
Feather, Solomon Pitcher and Daniel Dunham. 

1765. Duncan, John. [Schenectady.] To [John Bradstreet]. 

Jul. 17. Sworn statement before John Glen jr., as to 

character and price of lumber furnished. D. S. Ip. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Aug. 4. Gage]. Acknowledges letter of Jul. 29, enclosing 
petition of [Mathew] Trotter; petitioner was 
offered as much pay as he had earned but refused 
it; charges were too high; asks instructions as 
to enlistment of deserters and interpretation 
of act of Parliament for quartering troops etc. 
upon the people. Auto. Draft. Ip, 

This measure for quartering soldiers upon Americans 
was passed in Apr. 1765, being an extension of the Mutiny 
Act to America. It was known as the Quartering or 
Billeting Act in the Colonies. 

[1765.] Glen, John. [Schenectady.] To [Commissary 
[Aug. 7?] Officers and whom it may concern]. Orders 
[to pass Abraham Van Eps and eight men] with 
provision batteaux en route to Oswego. Four 
notes regarding the trip to Sept. 1 are attached. 
A. D. S. 2pp. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 87 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To [John] Bradstreet. 
Aug. 10. Certificate of batteaux for royal service delivered 
by Eleazer Cawey with receipt of Henry Glen 
in behalf of Cawey dated Jul. 23, 1766 for pay- 
ment in full of account. A. D. S, Ip. 

1765, Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
Aug. 12. cers [and whom it may concern]. Orders to 
pass bearers with provision batteaux ; on delivery 
of goods receipt to be given and any deficiency 
to be noted on orders; Andrew Wimple in charge 
of batteaux and provisions are to be delivered 
to Douw Fonda for use of Indians at Caughnawa. 
Attached are receipts of Fonda dated Aug. 14 
for goods and of Peter Comyn dated Nov. 6 for 
services performed. A. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Glen, John. [Schenectady.] To Commissary 
Aug. 13. Officers [and whom it may concern]. Orders 
to pass bearers with provision batteaux for 
Fort Stanwix; when goods are delivered receipt 
to be given and deficiencies noted on orders. 
Attached are three notes regarding passage 
of boats. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Aug. 18. Gage. Acknowledges letter of Aug. 12; allow- 
ance of wagons to a regiment made by Sir 
Jeffrey Amherst; difference of conditions between 
taking the field and marching to port; is for- 
warding tobacco in accordance with orders. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1765. Grant, Allan. Fort George. To [John] Bradstreet. 

Sep. 1. Certificate of services of Vincent Benneway 

[or Benoit] in movement from Albany to Fort 

George with receipt of Benneway dated May 25^ 

1766 for payment of account. A. D. S. Ip, 

Similar certificates were given Bradstreet during Sep- 
tember and October regarding Jacob Van Vordt, Jykeris 



88 American Antiquarian Society. 

Van der Bogart, Cornelius Cuyler, and notes as to services 
of John Heimstrart, Lawrence Clew and Henry and Isaac 
Lawnson. Many of these manuscripts have receipts for 
payments for services attached. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. To [Thomas] Gage. 
Oct. 14. States charge made against himself by the Atty. 
Genl. of New York in dispute with "Dutch 
Church"; is charged with using and injuring 
lands of church 1759-1762 to extent of £1000; 
despite lack of proof that land belonged to church 
or that any trespass was made by his order and 
refusal of Commander in Chief [Sir Jeffrey 
Amherst] to support claim, arbiters decide that 
he must pay £210; advises Gage to submit 
proceedings to the king's ministers together 
with copy of charter of city under which land 
is claimed ; charter is not good in law and people 
should be informed that there is no basis for 
claim. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

See: Bradstreet to Sir Jeffrey Amherst, May 23, and 
Amherst to Bradstreet, Aug. 28, 1763. 

1765. Arnot, Hugh. [Niagara.] To [John Bradstreet]. 
Oct. 31. Certificate of service of non-commissioned officers 
and privates of the 46th regiment employed May 
1 in Quarter Master General's department. Ac- 
count for each of eight companies is signed by 
officer of company and the whole account, 
£68. 18s. is countersigned by Arnot. On verso 
is receipt by Cornelius Cuyler to Bradstreet 
dated Mar. 6, 1766. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To [John] Bradstreet. 
Nov. 9. Statement of account of Teunis Van Vleck 
against the Crown for carriage of baggage four- 
teen days, with receipt of Van Vleck dated 
Jul. 15, 1766 in full of above charge. A. D. S. Ip. 

1765. Glen, John. Schenectady. To [John] Bradstreet. 
Nov. 10. Certificate of service of Adam Smith in impress- 
ment of carriages for King's use with receipt 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 89 

of Smith dated Apr. 7, 1766, in full of above 
charge. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 

Nov. 17. Gage]. Sickness of barrack master at Fort 

Edward; difficulties in procuring wood for the 

winter; supplies which need renewing; poor 

condition of roads. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1765. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Nov. 23. Gage. Acknowledges letter of Nov. 17; to 

prevent the corporation of Albany destroying 
the new barracks before arrival of additional 
troops has moved a portion of the garrison 
thither; encloses copies of correspondence with 
the Mayor on the matter, also return of additional 
troops; bearer of letter has petition of Assembly 
regarding men raised for the New York bat- 
talion in 1764. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1766. Byerly, Frederick. Fort Edward. To Gerrit 
Feb. 17. Knoet [Abert?]. Receipt for 12 bbls. of flour 

brought to post by Gerrit Knoet, Jacob Knoet 
and Nicholas Van Vrank. Attached is receipt 
of Apr. 13, for payment for flour. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1766. Maitland, Richard. New York. To [John Brad- 

Feb. 28. street]. General orders respecting marching of 

troops and all contingent charges; method of 

arranging accounts; allowances for detachments; 

payment of incidental expenses, etc. D. S. 3pp. 

1766. Vaughan, John. New York. To John Bradstreet. 
Mar. 10. Account of money due Quartermaster George 
Butrick of the 46th regiment in payment of 
wages of four men for 36 days' service making 
hay at Niagara, £7. 4s. N. Y. currency. Attached 
is receipt of Butrick dated Mar. 16 for above 
account. D. S. Ip. 



90 American Antiquarian Society. 

1766. Bayley, William. Schenectady. To [John Brad- 
Mar. 24. street]. Certificate of services of John Vedder and 
of Jean Baptiste Van Eps in transporting provis- 
ions from Albany. Attached is receipt of Jacob 
W. Schermerhorn dated Aug. 14 for payment 
in full for Vedder's services. A. D. S. 3pp. 

1766. Maitland, Richard. New York. To [John] Brad- 
Jun. 14. street. Orders for march of six companies 
1st battalion, Royal American regiment to 
Quebec. D. S. Ip. 

1766. Bleecker, Henry, jr. Albany. To John Bradstreet. 

Jun. 30. Receipt of £7. 4s. ''which with £80 from * * * 

Abraham Dow " is for the pay of the late Anthony 

Bleecker, Interpreter May 1-Dec. 4, 1764 in the 

[Indian] expedition of that year. D. S. Ip. 

1766. Gage, Thomas. New York. To [John] Bradstreet 
Jun. 30. or Officer in command at Albany. Directs 
examination of evidence against John Dubell 
and Garret Van Slyke of Albany for aiding 
deserters; information may be obtained from 
Capt. [Philip] Schuyler; four deserters named. 
L. S. 2pp. 

1766. Glen, John. Schenectady, To [John] Bradstreet. 

Jul. 1. Certificate of batteaux for royal service delivered 

by John Johnson and Adam Fonda. Attached is 

receipt of JeUis Fonda dated Jul. 23 for payment 

in full of above account. A. D. S. Ip. 

During July similar certificates of service performed 
or of material furnished were given Bradstreet regarding 
Jan Vrooman, Jacob Hemstreack, Gerrit Knoet [Abert?] 
and John Van Vrank all of which have receipts attached 
for payment of services rendered. 

1766. Carye, L[ucius] F[erdinan]d. Fort Edward. To 
Jul. 4. Philip Schuyler. Has been charged ferriage 
for 224 men and 17 wagons but finds no prece- 
dent for payment of such charges for king's 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 91 

troops; if charge is just requests Schuyler to 
pay it and repayment will be made upon his 
return to Albany. A. L. S. Ip. 

1766. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 

[Jul.] 21. Gage]. Has applied to the Mayor [of Albany] 

as to completion and furnishing of barracks for 

soldiers; reasons for existing conditions. Auto. 

Draft. Ip. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 22. See: 
Bradstreet to Gage. Nov. 23, 1765. 

1766. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Sept. 15. Gage. Acknowledges letter of Sept. 1; will 
follow instructions respecting 17th regiment 
upon their receipt; explains delay in forwarding 
public accounts for previous year; [Philip] 
Schuyler not able to sell bills upon satisfactory 
footing; asks if any word has been received from 
England as to payment of men raised for the 
[New] York battalion [of the 55th regiment]. 
Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1766. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Oct. 25. Gage. Acknowledges letter of Oct. 20; as he 
was so pressing for settlement of last year's 
accounts writer advanced money to do so not 
waiting for sale of [Gage's] bills; has been informed 
by [Philip] Schuyler that bills have since been 
sold ; has referred the portion of letter relating 
to Schuyler to that person; considers [John] 
Glen a very capable assistant and prefers to 
make up from his own pocket any reduction in 
Glen's salary rather than to lose that official; 
will send last year's account to him by Schuyler. 
Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

[1766.] Comyn, Peter. [Albany.] To [John] Bradstreet. 
[Oct?] Statement of account showing cash received 

from [Maj.] Genl. [Thomas] Gage and succeeding 
items furnished. In Ms. of clerk. Ip. 



92 American Antiquarian Society. 

1766. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. To [William Petty, 
Nov. 2. Earl Shelburne?] Explains circumstances con- 
nected with his enlistment of men for the New 
York battalion [of the 55th regt.] by order of 
Maj. Genl. [Thomas] Gage Apr. 2, 1764 to date; 
refusal of province and of Gage to pay men; 
has been sued for wages of soldiers amounting 
to nearly £2000 and is told by lawyers that he 
must pay; asks whether he better enter suit 
against Gage for amount; has forwarded a 
memorial of the matter to the Treasury through 
Gage but has heard nothing of it; requests 
Shelbume's influence; will write the king or 
his Secretary at War if advised to do so. Auto. 
Draft. 2pp. 

See: Bradstreet to Gage, Feb. 2 and Feb. 25, 1765; 
Jan. 15, 1767; and the following account. 

[1766?] [Bradstreet, John. Albany.] Account of enlist- 
[Nov. 2?] ments in New York 1764. Account is in reply 
to [Maj. Genl. Thomas Gage]: "A Brief state 
of the circumstance relating to Colonel Brad- 
street's enlisting 107 men for the New York 
Battalion in 1764". The reasons for the enlist- 
ment are given and the position in which Brad- 
street as well as the troops enlisted are left because 
of the neglect of province and of Commander 
in Chief is set forth. Auto. Draft. 4pp. 

"' Enclosed in preceding manuscript. 

See: Gage to Bradstreet, Feb. 1765. 

1766. [Albany, Dutch Church.] Albany. To John Brad- 
Nov. 12. street. Receipt by E[ilardus] Westerlo, jr. 

See : Account of the Church against Bradstreet Apr. 1765 . 

1766. Maturin, G[abriel.] New York. Letter to [John] 

Nov. 29. Bradstreet. Explanations [of accounts presented] 

are satisfactory; returns vouchers with abstract 

of what has been paid and what remains due on 

contingent account; clerk will pay balance 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 93 

whenever desired; Board of Treasury hold 
[Maj.] Genl. [Thomas Gage] accountable for all 
disbursements in North America; latter desired 
heads of departments to have account with 
Treasury as before subject only to his approval. 
A. L. S. 2pp. 

Maturin was Gage's Secretary at headquarters, New York. 

1766. Maturin, G[abrie).] Head Quarters. [New York.] 
Dec. 4. Letter to [John] Bradstreet. Has examined 
charge for soldiers annexed to Bradstreet's 
memorial; requests list of such bills as Bradstreet 
can most conveniently use to the total of above 
charge; temporary receipt to be given [Maj.] 
Genl. [Thomas Gage] until permanent policy 
of Board of Treasury is known and answer to 
memorial received; has forwarded balance of 
account for 1765 and £1000 currency toward 
expense of current year. A. L. S. 2pp. 

1766. Crippen, Joseph. Sharon, [Conn.] To John Brad- 
Dec. 26. street. Assignment to Solomon Strong of power 

to collect wages when serving in company of 
Capt. Isaac Van Valkenburgh in 1764. The 
manuscript is in the hand of John Williams, 
is witnessed by John and William Williams, and 
sworn to before John WilHams, Justice of the 
Peace. D. S. Ip. 

1767. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas] 
Jan. 15. Gage. Acknowledges letter of Jan. 6; had no 

intention of asking for a gratuity when seeking 
reimbursement for expenses in connection with 
raising troops for campaign of 1764; case of Col. 
[Henry] Bouquet not like his nor are the cases in 
European service; if his "expenses for the good 
of the service" can not be repaid in whole 
requests a part, thanks Gage for services thus 
far rendered. Auto. Draft. Ip. 



94 American Antiquarian Society. 

1767. [Bradstreet, Jolin.] Albany: Letter to [Thomas] 
Jan. 22. Gage. Troops have interfered to prevent towns- 
people tearing down government store house; 
"some gentlemen of the law at New York" 
claim the building could be torn down as a public 
nuisance but troops acted in accordance with 
Gage's orders; fears the courts will uphold the 
view of the lawyers. Auto. Draft. Ip. 

1767. Wood, Draper S. Albany. Letter to John Brad- 
Feb. 3. street. Sleds wanted for Sir William Johnson's 
Indians. A. L. S. Ip. 

In Sir William Johnson Manuscripts ante p. 23. 

1767. Stephens, James. Fort Stanwix. To John "Glyn" 
Jun. 26. [Glen]. Certificate of services of Robart Strange 
in transporting ordnance to Schenectady; six 
days delay at Fort Stanwix. Attached are 
receipts of James Nash dated Jul. 4 for ordnance 
received and of Abraham Oothout dated 
Jan. 23, 1768 for money in payment of services 
rendered. D. S. 2pp. 

1767. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Nov. 14. Gage]. Understands that Assembly meets Nov. 
17 and that Gov. Henry Moore is to urge pay- 
ment for men enlisted by Bradstreet [in 1764]; 
gives account of the circumstances that Gage 
may submit the matter to the legislature in his 
own name; Col. [Philip] Schuyler will render 
any assistance desired in the matter; letters 
given to Schuyler to be placed before Assembly 
if Gage consents. Auto. Draft. Ip. incomplete. 

1767. [Bradstreet, Jolin.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas Gage]- ■ 

Nov. 22. Encloses account for 1766 and will forward 

return of outstanding debts as soon as possible; 

guns taken from French at Oswego by desire 

of Sir William Johnson; wishes the number 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 95 

received by [John] Butler for use of Indians; 
refers to Capt. [Gabriel] Maturin for information; 
sends two accounts of what is due him [Brad- 
street] for campaign of 1764; one includes expend- 
iture for secret service; by precedent of 1756 
this service is allowed; if not approved, will 
try to have it paid "at home." Auto. 
Draft. 2pp. 

1768. Schuyler, Abraham. Albany. To Jellis Fonda. 
Jul. 25. Receipt for five bear skins from Petrus Van 
Driessen. A. D, S. Ip. 

1768, Glen, John. Schenectady. To Commissary Offi- 
Aug. 2. cers [and whom it may concern]. Orders to 
pass bearers with provision batteaux under 
charge of "Wouter Dance"; on receipt of goods 
acknowledgment to be made and deficiencies 
to be noted on orders. A. D. S. (2) 2pp. 

On verso are Glen's instructions to Wouter Dance and 
receipt from Lt. [John] Galland to Dance, each an A. N. S. 

1768. Glen, John. Schenectady. To John Bradstreet. 

Nov. 4. Certificate that Cornelius Glen has furnished one 

batteau for royal service with receipt by Abraham 

Cuyler dated Jan. 10, 1771 for payment of 

account. A. D. S. 2pp. 

1768. Glen, John. [Schenectady.] To [John Bradstreet]. 
Dec. 20. Certificate of services of Albert Vidder [Vedder?] 

in repairing 13 batteaux. A. D. S. Ip. 

1769. [Bradstreet, John.] Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Jan. 15. Gage]. Trouble over the payment of debts 

outstanding from 1767, a list of which was 
forwarded in Oct. [Dec] of that year; people 
are sueing [John] Glen and latter, being only an 
agent, falls back on Bradstreet; hopes he will 
not be compelled to pay just debts of the army; 



96 American Antiquarian Society. 

encloses accounts for 1768 "chiefly for Sir 
William Johnson's Department" and unpaid 
debts of 1767; disputes between late Capt. [John] 
Stevens and batteau men; troubles with Capt. 
[Joshua] Loring and testimony of Col. [Delancey] 
Robinson in this matter; if money is allowed 
as desired, writer will draw on [Abraham] 
Mortier for it. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

1769. [Bradstreet, John]. Albany. Letter to [Thomas 
Feb. 18. Gage]. Encloses account of contingent expenses 
and outstanding debts for previous year; pre- 
cautions taken to prevent fraud; encloses copy 
of instructions from Sir Jeffrey Amherst for 
discharge of outstanding debts contracted during 
[William] Shirley's administration ; trouble antic- 
ipated for [John] Glen; position of Capt. [Robert] 
Rogers in the past. Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

[1770?] Bradstreet, John. [Albany. To Gov. John Murray, 
[May] Earl Dunmore, and the Council of New York.] 

Petition and argument setting forth the invalidity 
of the Hardenbergh patent in New York and 
petitioner's right to 300,000 acres of lands pur- 
chased from the Indians in 1769; purchase was 
by consent of Sir William Johnson and in the 
presence of Sir Henry Moore ; requests that claim 
be confirmed by royal grant. The argument, 
framed by Bradstreet 's attorney and strengthened 
by additions, was forwarded [by Dunmore?] to 
the Lords of Trade and Plantation March, 1771. 
Draft. 72pp. 

See Docts. relating to Col. Hist, of New York, VIII, 267, 
268, 271, 287, 289, 294, 347, 378, and following entry. This 
manuscript is printed in full on page 149 of this volume. 

1771. [Johnson, Sir William.] Johnson Hall. Letter to 

Jan. 22. Col. [John] Bradstreet. Acknowledges letter of 

Dec, 1770; considers it but just to state that Six 

Nations declared that they and they only had the 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 97 

right to sell lands west of Popaghtonk branch; 
although lands were claimed under Hardenbergh 
patent, Indians granted land to Bradstreet in 
presence of Sir Henry Moore; could be more 
circumstantial but thinks above statement 
sufficient for Bradstreet's purpose. Copy. Ip. 

Draft of above is in Sir William Johnson Papers in New 
York State Library. 

1771, Coventry, George. Fairhill near Hamilton, [Ber- 
Jun. 25. muda?] Letter to John Bradstreet. Difficul- 
ties regarding his brother and his work in New 
York; career of latter and of his nephew; asks 
advice as to return to America; acknowledges 
letters of Dec. 9 [1770] from Bradstreet and Sept. 
12 from Capt. [Philip] Schuyler. A. L. S. 2pp. 

1771. Coventry, George. Hamilton. [Bermuda?]. Let- 
Aug. 20. ter to John Bradstreet or Capt. Philip Schuyler. 

Acknowledges letters of Sept. 12 and Dec. 9, 
1770 from Schuyler and Bradstreet respectively; 
gives directions regarding management of farms; 
Stevenson farm at Claverack to be taken from 
his brother and put in charge of his nephew 
Alexander Patterson; other personal matters. 
A. L. S. Ip. 

On verso in auto, of Bradstreet is list of provisions placed 
on board two sloops. 

1772. Monier, John. Albany. To [John] Bradstreet. 
Oct. 19. Account of Post Officer at Albany against 

Bradstreet from Jul. 5, 1771 to Sept. 26, 1772, 
with receipt for payment of account in full. 
D. S. Ip. 

1773 [Bradstreet, John. Albany.] Letter to [WiUiam 

May 10. Petty, Earl Shelburne?]. Recounts his services 

in behalf of the Crown from 1745 to date and 

declares himself to have been hardly used; 



98 American Antiquarian Society. 

several inferior officers promoted over his head; 
is the only general officer in the service without 
a regiment; hopes for this recognition of his 
services although he has ''not gone to England to 
importune for what he had a right to expect." 
Auto. Draft. 2pp. 

Bradstreet had been promoted to a Major Generalship 
May 25, 1772. 

1773. Glen, John. Sche[nectad]y. To [Jolin] Bradstreet. 

Aug. 20. Returns Book of [Land] Patents; finds that he 

has just claim to large estate in Schenectady; 

movements of Gov. [William] Tyron. A. L. S. Ip. 

1773. Bradstreet, John. Albany. Letter to William 
Sept. 29. Tryon. Petitions that [George] Mcintosh and 
others from New England be put off certain 
lands purchased by Bradstreet from the Indians 
under leave of Sir Henry Moore; location of 
lands on main branch of Delaware river; con- 
siders Hardenbergh Patent ^1706] not inclusive 
of his lands but rather invalid and of no force. 
A. D. S. 4pp. 

See: Bradstreet, John. Petition May, 1770, and Docts. 
relating to Col. Hist, of New York VIII, 272. 

1773. Coventry, George. Fairhill, [Bermuda?] Letter to 
Oct. 11. John Bradstreet. Has purchased land in Island 
of St. Johns; will sell home place as soon as possi- 
ble for he wishes much to go to his new purchase; 
intends sending Alexander Patterson to begin 
a settlement there; asks regarding his brother; 
in case latter leaves farm which he is working, 
desires Bradstreet to put William Martin in 
charge; offer to his brother in case he will leave; 
respects to [Philip] Schuyler. A. L. S. Ip. 

1773. Glen, Jolin. Schenectady. To [John] Bradstreet. 

Dec. 30. Explanations regarding stores for the Indians; 

acknowledges note by Adam Condie. A. L. S. Ip. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 99 

[1773.] Bradstreet, John. [Albany.] State of Account 
with Phyn & Ehice. Existing relation between 
the two parties; claims against Bradstreet with 
reply of latter to these claims. Auto Draft. 6pp. 

1777[?] Wain, Anthony. [Albany.] To [Estate of] John 
Sept. 11. Bradstreet. Account against Bradstreet for 
meats, with receipt in full dated Oct. 16. 
A. D. S. Ip. 

Endorsed: Anthony Wayne. 



THE CLAIMS OF 
COL. JOHN BRADSTRBET 

TO 

LANDS IN AMERICA. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 103 



NOTE. 

Few Colonial land titles in America have been contested 
with more vigor than that of Col. John Bradstreet to certain 
Indian lands within the limits of the present state of New 
York. Interfering as it did with claims under the Hardenbergh 
patent of 1706, Bradstreet's title was as aggressively opposed 
as it was ardently maintained, both in the colony of New York 
and at the Court of Great Britain. A summary of the action 
taken upon the Bradstreet claim will not be amiss as an intro- 
duction to the argument by which it was supported. 

So far as the native title was concerned, Bradstreet's claim 
originated in an Indian deed of October 29, 1768, and was 
completed by the acceptance of the deed and the payment 
of the purchase money in the following year. On presenting 
a petition for a patent from the Government in May, 1770, 
Bradstreet was at once opposed by the Hardenbergh propri- 
etors, following which the Council of New York on May 30, 
1770, directed Bradstreet to serve a copy of his petition and 
the order taken thereon upon the Hardenbergh proprietors 
with a summons to them for July 4, to show cause why his 
prayer should not be granted. After some delay, Dec. 10 
was assigned for the argument of counsel for the Bradstreet 
claim and on that date the major portion of this argument, 
printed upon the following pages, was presented. In oppo- 
sition to Bradstreet's claim which held the earlier patent 
invalid and its construction strained, counsel for the Harden- 
bergh proprietors presented their case on Feb. 5, 1771, 
following which the Bradstreet argument was concluded. 
Further evidence was given on March 11 and 18, and on the 
20th of the same month a grant of 20,000 acres was made by 
the Council to Bradstreet. 

Upon reference of both petition and grant to the British 
authorities for their formal approval this action was on June 5, 



104 American Antiquarian Society. 

1771, declared illegal, the home government holding that the 
New York Provincial Council lacked power to decide upon 
the petition. The letter of Lord Hillsborough giving this 
decision aroused the Council and on August 14 that body 
made a report at length in answer to Hillsborough maintaining 
the powers of the province. 

As a result of this additional contest the validity of the 
Bradstreet claim remained unsettled for two years. The 
discussion was transferred to England and not until August 
31, 1773, was the petition granted once more by the Council 
of New York. The death of Bradstreet in the following year 
left the claim to his heirs for final settlement with the later 
state of New York. 

The manuscript as printed on the following pages gives in 
full the argument of Bradstreet 's counsel, those portions being 
noted which were added before presentation in England. So 
far as known, no other copy of Bradstreet's argument exists in this 
country, and the commissioners from New York appear to have 
found nothing of the character when transcribing in England 
the manuscripts there filed relating to the Colonial history of 
New York. It is here printed as a good illustration of the 
vagueness with which land grants were described and the 
character of the arguments by which they were maintained 
during the Colonial period of American history. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 105 



THE AKGUMENT. 



May it please your Lordship & the Honorable Board: — 

There is perhaps no Tribunal at which Declamation will 
less succeed than at this Honorable Board. When Judges are 
of a Rank superior to those Emotions which in vulgar Minds 
usurp the place of Reason the Orator cannot expect to bear 
his blushing Honors thick upon him. The Weight of Evidence 
the Energy of Argument will command Attention & the plain 
Road of Common Sense will lead to conviction while the flowery 
Path of Rhetoric remains neglected and untrodden. Had 
those Sentiments been adopted by the Gentlemen who spoke 
agt us much Time unnecessarily spent might have been Excused 
and were it not that the Matter in Controversy is of very great 
importance to the Crown & my Claim I should have saved your 
Lordship & this Board the Trouble of attending to this Reply. 
The Gentlemen who oppose us have endeavoured to support 
such an Extension of the Patent to Joh^[annes Hardenbergh as 
is opposed to] the Right of the Crown and Deprives my Client 
& his Associates of the Benefit of an Indian pact Regularly 
obtained and of the [advantage] of his Majesty's Letters patent 
for the Lands in Controversy. And as at the opening of this 
[Controversy] it was made a Question whether Col. Bradstreet 
is entitled to the Grace of the Crown even were the Lands 
vacant. I shall in the Course of this Reply — 

First shew that he is in a Situation [which] entitles him 
to ask that Grace and Secondly, that there is room for con- 
tending if the Patent to Hardenbergh and others be justified 
[it should be restricted] within proper bounds. And as to 
the first point my Lord^ — 

According to the Regulation that has for some Years existed 

First Set f Proofs ^^ purchase cau be made of the Indians but by 

the Govt, or Commander in Chief for his Majesty's 

use at some public meeting with the Indian Tribe to whom the 



^The words within the brackets are supplied by the Editor when the original 
manuscript is torn or illegible. 

^ These two introductory paragraphs appear to have been added when the 
argument was taken from the New York authorities and presented to the British 
Court. Other changes of wording will be noticed as the argument proceeds. 



106 American Antiquarian Society. 

Lands belong — ^That the Lands in Controversy were thus 
Indian Deed No. 1. purchased Will be rendered evident from an 
i^e^<i>*- Indian deed procured in conformance to the 

above mentioned Regulation at the Expense of Col. Bradstreet 
and his Associates. 

From this deed it appears that Col. Bradstreet and his 
Associates paid the Indians a large Consideration, that the 
Gov'", obtained the Conveyance to his Majesty's Use at a General 
Treaty and that it was made by the Indians expressly with 
the Intent that Col. Bradstreet and his Associates should have 
the preference to all others in obtaining his Majesty's Letters 
patent for the Lands thereby conveyed. 

But besides this Conformity to the Regulation prescribed 
by the royal Proclamation the purchase was made with the 
privity of Sir W™. Johnson Superin (ten) dent for Indian Affairs 
T-T o a- Tir in the Northern District. 

No. 2 Oir Win. . ^ ^ • -r a /-i i ■!-« i 

Johnson's Letter. Ihis appears by his Letter to Col. Bradstreet 
^^^'^ ''■ on the subject— 

This Letter my Lord will serve not only to shew Sir William's 
Privity to the purchase and that it was publickly transacted 
as appears from these Words in it "If I was sufficiently 
recovered to have recourse to the several proceedings at that 
Time I might possibly be more circumstantial but I fancy 
this will prove satisfactory as to the Idea the Indians enter- 
tained and their Intentions in making the Grant to You" [but] 
it will also be of use under the Second General Head and 
shew in Addition to what has been offered in proof from the 
Acts & Declaration of the Esopus Indians (under whom the 
Proprietors of Hardenbergh's patent Claim their Indian Title) 
that both those Indians & the Six Nations agreed that the 
property of the Lands in Controversy were in the latter as the 
native original prop" thereof. 

True it is that the Lands in Controversy are within the Line 
established at the above mentioned Treaty as the boundary 
of the Lands ceded by the Indians to the Crown; but as that 
No. 3 Extract of Cessiou was posterior to our purchase and as 
Indian Treaty. by the Terms of the Treaty (of which we are 
informed the Gov*, is possessed) it will appear that 
the Indians made a Saving in favor of those of his Majesty's Sub- 
jects to whom they had sold Land, the Cession must operate as a 
Confirmation of our Indian Title. And that We reason justly, 
my Lord, will appear from an Extract of the Treaty which I 
beg leave to read. 

No. 3 Col. Cro- '^^^ Faimess of this Transaction will further 

ghjin's^ Certificate, appear from a Certificate of Col. Croghan who 

■*■ was present at the Execution of our Deed & at the 

'See summary of letter in Calendar under date Jan 22. 1771. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 107 

Indian Treaty at which it was executed. But this fact is further 
No. 4 Adems Cer- Confirmed by the Certificate of Robert Adems 
tificate. Read it. Q^e of the Witnesses sworn to by John Butler 
interpreter and the other Witnesses to the Indian Deed, 

From those several pieces of Evidence my Lord we humbly 
conceive that it appears to a demonstration evident that the 
Lands in Controversy were purchased by Sir Henry Moore at 
our Expense at a public Meeting or Treaty with the Native 
Indian prop""^., and tho' to his Majesty's use, yet in fact for our 
Benefit, and with a declared intent to entitle us to his Majesty's 
Letters patent for the same, that the Consideration was actually 
paid & the deed executed in the presence of Sir Henry Moore, 
that the purchase was confirmed by the Af"^. Treaty of Cession 
and we presume there is not the least Reason to doubt we should 
long since have experienced the Grace of the Crown in Common 
with several others of his Majesty's Subjects whose purchases 
were in the same predicament with ours, by the Grant of his 
Majesty's Letters patent, had it not been for that Groundless 
opposition of the proprietors of Hardenbergh's patent, which 
has hitherto obstructed all our Attempts made at a Great 
Expense to avail ourselves of his Majesty's Royal favor. But, 
my Lord, to shew that this Opposition is groundless, We shall 
proceed under the Second General Head. 

P*. To recapitulate the arguments & proofs which we 
offered at the first Hearing against the Claim of our Opponents, 
etc. 

2"^. To obviate such Objections as at the last hearing they 
attempted to avail themselves of — In the Execution of this 
part of our Task I shall aim at all possible Brevity; and flatter 
myself that every Obstacle which has hitherto prevented us 
from reaping the fruits of his Majesty's Royal Munificence 
will be effectually removed. 

To do justice however to a Cause of so much importance, 
as we barely opened the points & read the Evidence we had 
to produce in support of them, without scarcely enforcing them 
with a single Reflection, I must beg the favor of your Lordship 
& the Honorable Board, that I may be a little more copious 
in this Reply."* 

In the opening Argument, I broke two points. (1.) The 
suspicious Circumstances that attended the issuing of Harden- 
bergh's patent & from those concluded that the greatest favor 
the prop'"^ of that patent could expect was a rigid construction 
of their Boundaries — especially as it is a Crown Grant; (2.) 
That from a variety of Evidence it was extremely apparent 
that neither the Indians of whom they purchased nor the 

*The reference is to the opening argument and petition presented in May 1770. 
See summary of proceedings in prefatory note. 



108 American Antiquarian Society. 

proprietors themselves ever till of late years esteemed the 
boundaries of that patent to extend bej^ond the Popaghtonk 
or East Branch of the Fish Kill or Northernmost Branch of 
Delaware River. 

Under the first point my Lord I observed that as by the 
Policy of Law all Letters patent in England must pass thru' 
certain different Offices, which serve as a Check each upon 
the other to prevent undue alienations of the Crown Lands 
so in this Country there is and at least ever since the Gov.* came 
into the Hands of the Crown, has been a fixed and estab- 
lished Channel thru' which every Grant of the Crown Lands 
must pass in order to be good and valid in the Law. 

That his Majesty & his Royal predecessors have tho't fit 
to make the participation of his Council as well as that of his 
Gov'", or Commander in Chief absolutely necessary in the 
Grant of Crown Lands — 

That therefore every grant as to situation & Quantity which 
has not been fully & apparently assented to by the Council 
for the Time being must be null & void as issued without 
authority. 

I then proceeded my Lord to shew that the Grant to Harden- 
Second Set of bergh & Company was in that predicament. To 
proofs. evince this I adduced the following proofs. 

(L) Johannes Hardenberghin behalf of himself & Company 

A Petition of ^" ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^''^^ presented his petition to 
Johannes Harden- [Eclward Hyde,] Lord Cornbury then Gov"", of this 
t^r^Vurchasr^'^a provluce Setting forth a discovery of a Small 
uStir '^^^"^ *° Tract of vacant & unappropriated Land in the 
County of Ulster & desiring to settle & improve 
it, he prays a License to purchase it of the Indians. 

This my Lord was the first Step taken towards obtaining 
the patent in Question. 

The petition is for a Small Tract of Land in the County of 
Ulster only — and yet scanty as the limits were which the 
petitioner assigned to himself, this petition was the first step 
towards a Grant containing, exclusive of the present & all other 
Controversies, upwards of 1100 M. [1100 000] Acres & extending 
into the County of Albany as well as that of Ulster. 

(2.) The Gov'", probably deceived with the pretence of 
the Smallness of the Tract without strictly enquiring into the 
Bounds or extent of Country the petitioner had in view did 

No. 1 B License to ^^ ?^ ^^*^®^' ^f^ Couucil the Same day give the 
purchase a small Petitioner a License to purchase a small Tract 
Tract m Ulster. ^^ j^aud iu the Couuty of Ulster 

(3.) What Use the petitioner & his Associates made of 
this License for the purchase of a small Tract is not uncertain — 
For tho' the first petition & the License grounded on it were 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 109 

No. 2 Second peti- ^^^ ^ ^™^^1 Tract of Land yet the petitioner & his 
tion of Harden- Associates as appears by their Second petition 
^^'^^- dated the 17th March 1706/7 had so enlarged their 

plan that instead of purchasing of the Indians a small Tract 
they had procured from them a Conveyance of "All That Tract 
of Land lying and being in the County of Ulster stretching 
from the Northwest Bounds of the Township of Marbletown 
northwesterly ten Miles beyond the Hills that lye on the south- 
east Side of the Low Lands or Meadow Land that lies on the 
Fish Kill or River and runs northeasterly with said Breadth 
till You come opposite to a Creek called by the Indians Anquoth- 
kon Kill where William Leggs Saw Mill stood, and further still 
running Northeasterly with the Breadth of Ten Miles from said 
Kill northwesterly, to the County of Albany & running South- 
wardly along the Northwest Bounds of the Town of Marble- 
town and Rochester with the full Breadth first above ment^^. 
till so far as to run with a due South East Line to a certain 
fall in the Rundour [Rondout] Creek called by the Indians 
Hoanekf. which is the northerly bounds of the Land called 
Nepenack [Napanock] belonging to Jacob Rutsen & Jan James 
Bleeker [Bleecker?]". This Extravagant purchase founded 
on a License for buying a small Tract appears from this petition 
to have given great Umbrage to their Neighbours. For this 
second petition declares that a Caveat had been entered ag^ their 
obtaining a patent for the above described Tract which probably 
interfered with their Neighbours They therefore pray a day 
may be assigned for hearing the parties — 

What became of this Contest we are not, perhaps for want 
of a proper search in the Secretary's office, able to determine. 
We will suppose however my Lord that for the present it was 
dropped. But 

(4.) On the 19*^ June 1707 Hardenbergh & Company 
N 3 A Third ^'^newed their Application to Gov*, by a third 
petition of Har- petition & prayed a Grant for the Lands they 
denbergh. j^^^l purchased of the Indians — which was read 

in Council. On that very day a petition of the Inhabitants 
& Freeholders of the Town of Hurley praying 
Counci?' o^'^'^'peti- ^ Grant of a parcel of Land between Marbletown 
tions of Harden- & Kingston & of another parcel between Kings- 
erg urey. ^^^ ^ ^^^ Blue Hills was also read in Council 
& both petitions were ordered to lie on the Table. 

(5.) On the 4**^ of Feb^ 1707 Hardenbergh & Co. presented 
their petition to my Lord Cornbury by which they enlarged 
their Request even beyond the Bounds of their Indian purchase 
& beyond the Bounds of Lister & extended it into the County 
of Albany; and by this petition they assert what is a downriguL 
Falsehood to wit that by his Excellency's favor & License 



110 American Antiquarian Society. 

they had purchased some certain vacant Lands in the Counties 
of Ulster & Albany and then under a pretence that they were 
put off meerly from an Apprehension that the Lands they had 
purchased might interfere with some former Grant, they, 
artfully pretending to avoid all Contest, pray for a Grant exactly 
in the Words of their present patent which include Lands in 
the County of Albany. 

No 4 B Order (^O On the day following, b'^ Feby. 1707, 
that the petition the last mentioned petition was read and so 
lie on the Table, c^utious Still Were the Gov^ & Council that 
they ordered that the petition should lie on the Table till the first 
Thursday in March then next and it was ordered that on that 
day the petitioners & the Inhab*^ of Hurley who had petitioned 
for a Tract of Land in the said County (Meaning the County 
of Ulster) should appear & be heard on their respective peti- 
tions on the first Tuesday in March then next, 
jj^ g g (7.) The Inhab**. of Hurley however did not 

appear at the day appointed & therefore on 
the 4th of March 1707/8 probably the day appointed for the 
purpose we find an Order of the Gov"". & Council that the 
Inhab*^. of Hurley do preemptorily appear that day Month 
to make out the Allegations of their former petition. 
No. 6B. (^•) O" ^^^ 18th March 1707/8 but 14 days 

after the last Order there is an Entry in the 
Council Books of a petition of Cornelius Cook and Adrian 
Gerritse in behalf of themselves & the other Inhabitants of 
the County of Ulster withdrawing their Caveat & praying a 
Grant of the Lands mentioned in their former petition which 
are not included within the petition of Hardenbergh; 

In consequence of which it was ordered by the Gov"". & 
Council that a Warrant be prepared for the Atty General to 
prepare a Draft of Letters patent for the Lands petitioned 
for by Johannes Hardenbergh & Company in the County of 
Ulster and 

No. 7B. .(^•) ^y ^^ Entry in the Minutes of Council 

it appears that a Warrant to the Atty General 
to prepare a patent for Johannes Hardenbergh and Company 
was signed — The Quit rent three pounds — 

Upon those pieces of Evidence we insisted that the Crown 
had been deceived in the Grant in Question for that the paten- 
tees had originally petitioned for a License to purchase a small 
Tract of Land in the County of Ulster & had abused that License 
by purchasing of the Indians a Tract of ten miles in Breadth 
& of a much more considerable Length, that they persisted 
in this Abuse, by petitioning for a patent for it; That after 
the Obstructions to their obtaining the patent for the Lands 
they had actually purchased beyond all reasonable Construction 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. Ill 

of their License were removed, they then rose in their Demands 
yet they did it with great Artifice in their last petition by 
setting forth that to avoid Contests with their Neighbours 
they only prayed for the Tract of vacant Land as since described 
in their patent & lying within the Counties of Ulster & Albany 
& therefore extending beyond either of their former petitions 
and their licensed Indian purchase, that nevertheless the 
Order of Council on their last petition expressly restricted 
them to the County of Ulster notwithstanding which, Contrary 
to the established Rules for the Grant of Letters patent which 
require the participation & Consent of the Council as well as 
that of the Governour the patent issued in its present form 
and gave the Patentees Lands in the County of Albany con- 
trary to the express Intention of the Council.^ That the 
Gov. & Council are in effect commissioners for granting the 
Crown Lands & must act jointly — ^That neither of them could 
execute this Trust alone. That the Gov'", had not the Advice 
of Council to grant Lands in the County of Albany, but on the 
contrary acted ag*. such advice in granting the patent in 
Question — That to suppose the declaration in the patent that 
it passed with the Advice of Council should be evidence of the 
fact, would be to contradict the last Entry in the Council 
Books which restricts the patent intended to be granted to 
the County of Ulster — That to give such efficacy to that dec- 
laration would be in effect to deprive the Council of their Right 
to participate with the Gov"", in the Grant of Lands, by leaving 
it in his power in defiance of that Right to divest the Crown 
of its property even without the Knowledge of the Council 
& that by a single Assertion which in fact would be false — ^That 
tho' the Grant of the Crown is a Matter of Record yet any grant 
under the Great Seal of this province which notwithstanding 
any thing asserted in it, could be shewn not to have passed 
thro' the ordinary Channel would be as null & void as a patent 
under the Great Seal of Great Britain reciting all the prere- 
quisites yet in fact & Truth supported by none of them would be. 
From all which it was concluded that the patent in Question 
issued upon false suggestion & deceit of the Crown & that 
therefore according to the clearest Rules of Law it is absolutely 
null & void & leaves full room for the Application of Col. 
Bradstreet's Indian purchase & petition a Grant in Consequence 
of which cannot possibly interfere with any one's Right. 

But to all this it was answered by the Counsel for Harden- 
berghs patent, that however clear it may be that the Council 
Board might have originally intended to confine the patent 



^Six lines are erased in the original manuscript at this point and as the followine; 
six lines give the argument in a form preferred by the Attorney they are omitted 
from this text. 



112 American Antiquarian Society. 

to the County of Ulster yet there is evidence that they after- 
wards consented to an Enlargement of the Bounds of the Grant- 
To support this Assertion the Warr*. to the 
Attorney General to prepare the Draft of the 
Letters patent dated the 15*^ April 1708 was produced; the 
Bounds of which run exactly in the same words with those 
of the patent itself. And to justify this Warrant Reference 
j^^ yg was had to the Entry in the Council Books of 

that day by which it appears that the Warr*. 
for the patent was signed. From whence it was concluded 
that the Council were privy to the Terms of the Warrant & 
consequently to the Boundaries contained in the patent. 

When I first opened this Matter, my Lord, I was utterly 
ignorant that such a Warrant existed — Col. Bradstreet informed 
me that he could find no warrant in the Office, whence I nat- 
urally concluded that the Warr*. referred to in the last men- 
tioned Entry in the Council Books, if any ever issued, must 
have been grounded on the Order of the ISth March preceeding 
which expressly directs that the Warr*. to the Atty General 
to prepare a patent should be confined to the Lands petitioned 
for in the County of Ulster. 

Nor my Lord can I still help thinking that this warrant 
was run either upon the Governour or the Council or both with- 
out due Knowledge of its contents." For neither the Warrant 
nor the Entry which in date corresponds with it appears to 
have been read in Council, nor is there the least Entry in the 
Council Books to show that the Gov"", and Council had recon- 
sidered the last petition of Hardenbergh the formal Order of 
Determination on which was that he should have a patent for 
the Lands petitioned for in the County of Ulster. It is easy there- 
fore to conceive that as the Warrant was merely signed in Council 
its Variance from that formal Order passed unobserved; and 
ought to have no more Credit from the Circumstance of its 
being signed there & the Entry of the Secretary that it was so 
signed than if it had been signed in the absence of the Council. 
Had it corresponded with the Order it had been immaterial 
where or in whose presence or with whose priAdty it was signed. 
But I humbly conceive as the Council are as necessary Agents 
as the Gov"", in the Grant of the Crown Lands, and as it appears 
that they had in Conjunction with the Governor by a solemn 
Determination restricted the petitioners to the County of 
Ulster, nothing less will do to remove all suspicion of Fraud 
than clear proof of a Revision & Renewal of that determination 
which our Opponents have not produced. 



"See No. 7 B. Ante p. 158. 

'Six lines are erased in the original manuscript at this point the argument being 
developed in the following text. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 113 

There is perhaps my Lord, further reason to suspect unfair 
Dealing towards the Crown in this Instance. My Lord^ 
Cornbury was well known both in Britain & America as a 
Gentleman remarkably unattentive to Business and therefore 
very liable to be deceived. Hardenbergh was the only man 
whose name appeared as a petitioner. But there were persons 
of more weight behind the Curtain who were to be benefited 
by the Grant. When the Warrant had issued Mr. [May] 
Bickley the Attorney General appeared as a patentee, and 
Mr. [Thomas] Wenham was more occultly personated by Mr. 
Robert Lurting who tho' inserted as a patentee lent his name 
to Mr. Wenham, for it appears from the Records of the Secre- 
tary's Office that the deed was executed by him to Mr. Wenham 
for 1/7*^ of the Tract, it bears the date 12*'' January 1708, is for 
Call for the Record a trifling Consideration and shews that the 
and read it Grant was a Trust for Mr. Wenham. Nor is it 

If opposed observe t i i i • t i xt r -r. 

It is for the Benefit 1 humbly couceive my Lord unworthy oi Re- 
of the Crown. mark that Mr. Wenham was so attentive to 
his Object that he was not absent one Council day in which this 
important Business came on the Tapis, and that particularly on 
the day in which the Warr*. was signed in Council he was one of 
four of the Council present As therefore my Lord this Honorable 
Board when employed on the Subject of granting away the 
Crown Lands is always considered as a Court of Requests, 
as Mr. Wenham appears upon our opponents use of the signing 
of the Warrant of Council to have sat as one of the Judges of 
this Court of Requests in his own Cause, which is contrary 
to all Reason & Law & extreamly dangerous to his Majesty's 
Right (for otherwise it cannot be when one of the Guardians 
of his Majesty's Land stock becomes a Suitor before himself 
for a part of that stock) I say my Lord as all those things 
appear I humbly conceive that the Warrant in Question can- 
not cure the radical Defects of the patent. And I would further 
beg leave to suggest it as a Subject of Enquiry to your Lord 
& the Honorable Board whether five members besides the Gov"", 
have not always been as they now are necessary to form a 
Quorum for Business, and if so as it appears that as well at 
the Meeting in which the Warrant was ordered for the Lands 
in the County of Ulster only as at that in which the Warrant 
was signed on which our Opponents so much rely one of the 

four Councillors present was a party the whole 
groo^f fshown^^n Basis of the patent does not fail, and if so we 
17^08 1^ "^^°- ^2, must submit it to your Lordship & this Board to 

determine what becomes of the patent itself. 
Having thus shewn my Lord that the patent is void there 
can be no controversy between us but if your Lordship & the 

* Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York 1702-1708. 



114 American Antiquarian Society. 

Honorable Board should be of a different Opinion which we 
flatter ourselves cannot be the Case, yet from the very suspicious 
circumstances which attended the issuing of Hardenbergh's 
patent I conclude that the greatest favor the proprietors of 
that patent can expect in this Controversy is a rigid Construc- 
tion of its Bounds — I proceeded — 

Under this Head to observe that your Lordship and the 
Honorable Board were Trustees of the Crown's Land Stock 
and the revenues either actual or contingent thence to arise 
and that in this View I made not the least doubt that to every 
Grant the Bounds of which come into Question here the Rules 
of Law would be applied as the proper Test; That the Law 
clearly is, that Grants of the Crown obtained on a suggestion 
of the party shall be construed strictly ag*^. the Grantee & 
most favorably for the Crown; That in this Case the Rule 
is the Reverse to that which prevails in the Construction of 
Grants between Subject & Subject — for in the Latter recitals 
may operate ag*. but never can make for the Grantor because 
they are his own Words, But that in Grants of the Crown 
suggestions of the Grantee tho' adopted by the Crown in its 
Grant, can never make ag*. the Crown but may & if the Matter 
of them is ag*. the Grantee will operate ag*. him; That when- 
ever the Grant of the Crown issues on the suggestion & petition 
of the party, he is held to suggest at his peril because the 
Attention of the Crown being ingaged on the Arduis Regni^ the 
Law has not only discharged the Crown from any Guards ag*. 
false suggestions in fact but has made it a Rule that wherever 
a Grant is made on petition & suggestion of the party it shall 
be construed strictly in favor of the Crown; That therefore 
in every such Grant where the Construction is doubtful or in 
other Words where two constructions may be put that which 
is most in favor of the Crown shall be received; that tho' it is 
a general Rule that Grants which express themselves as issuing 
of the special Grace certain Knowledge and meer Motion of 
the Crown shall for the King's Honor be construed most liberally 
in favor of the Grantee, yet those words become a dead Letter 
when the Grant is founded on the prayer and suggestion of 
the party and that for this most evident Reason that those 
Words being expressive of the King's spontaneous & selfmoved 
Exuberance of favor are expressly contradicted & their Opera- 
tion utterly annihilated by the Express Suit and Suggestion 
of the party as the moving Cause of the Grant which Obser- 
vations were, it was urged, so clearly & indubitably supported 
by Law, that it would have been an impassable Affront to offer 
to your Lordship & this Hono^^*. Board, under whose imme- 



* Concerns of government. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 115 

diate Care & direction the royal Land Stock is placed, a single 
Authority in their Support. 

This patent my Lord usually called by the Name of the 
Great Patent pays but £3 annual Quit rent. Supposing there- 
fore that it were not void yet the Attempts of the propr""^. 
to extend it beyond its real Bounds is a most manifest Attack 
upon his Majesty's Revenue — For if it should be construed 
rigidly yet by its Terms it is made to contain so much more 
Land than was really intended to be granted them in consequence 
of their 2^^. petition that the Crown has lost an immense part 
of its Revenue, which had not been the Case had those Lands 
been patented at the rate of Quit Rents established a few Years 
after, which might probably have long since been the Case had 
those Lands been vacant. This Loss added to the Loss [to] 
the public arising from the hitherto unpeopled State of [so] 
large a Tract as the whole patent, ought as we humbly Conceive 
to induce the Gov*, to look with a Jealousy [sic] eye on the 
late Attempt to give it an amazing Extent beyond what the 
Words of the patent can properly warrant. 
[Proper Construe- having thus my Lord cleared the way for a proper 
tion of the Har- Construction of the Bounds of the patent we pro- 
denbergh patent.] pgg^^g^j ^q shew how many Constructions this 
Grant was capable of from its own Words independent of any Evi- 
dence from without. We shewed that it was capable of four 
different Constructions, ground[ed] on these words of the Bound- 
Here lay open the aries to wit " So running along that Line that is 
Maps. No. 1 B. i^Q Ling Qf witness's patent Northwestly as the 
said Line Runs to the Fish Kill or River and so to the head 
thereof including the same, thence on a direct Line to the 
Head of a small River commonly known by the name of Cart- 
wright's Kill" That upon these Words it appears that the 
Fish Kill or River is the Stream the head of which is the 
Boundary according to the Words of the patent. The 
Question is — 

(L) Shall that be Esteemed the Head of the Fish Kill or 
River where the Stream loses that Name, that is at the point 
of Conflux of the East or Popaghtonk Branch & West or Cook- 
house or Mohawk Branch which Construction would be most 
in favor of the Crown or 

(2.) As the Popaghtonk or East Branch divides itself into 
two Branches shall the Head of the Southermost of those two 
Branches which would furnish the next best Construction in 
favor of the Crown be the Boundary or 

(3.) Shall the Head of the Northermost of those two 
Branches which would be more ag*. the Crown be the Boundary, 

Either of which three constructions will Leave the Lands 
in controversy vacant or 



116 American Antiquarian Society. 

(4.) Shall the Head of the Mohawk or Cook-house Branch, 
which will furnish the Construction the most ag*. the Crown 
of any that can possibly be & include the Lands in Controversy 
be the Boundary? 

I insisted my Lord that as this Grant is to be construed most 
strictly ag*. the grantees & most in favor of the Crown, the first 
of the above four Constructions ought to take place because 
it would take least from the Crown. To shew that this Con- 
struction was not only possible but natural I observed that 
in the Grant the Fish Ivill which is the Stream Below the forks 
of Shewakin or the place of Union of the Mohawk & Popaghtonk 
Branches, is the River the head of which is in the Grant declared 
to be the Boundary by the Words ^^ and so to the head thereof." 
That therefore the Question arises to wit which is the Head of 
the Fish Kill or River, the answer to which I conceived was 
that the forks of Shewakin or the place of Union of the Mohawk 
& Popaghtonk was the head of the Fish Kill or River. My 
Reasons my Lord were these 

(1.) That there the Fish Kill or river Ends because it there 
loses its Name. 

(2.) That if the Sources of Branches or smaller streams 
may be called Heads of the River because they empty them- 
selves into it, the Fish Kill has a variety of other Heads as 
the Source of the Lochawapin & many others on the West Side, 
& those of the Massacomeck [?] & many others on the East 
Side; That both the East & West Branches have their respec- 
tive peculiar & appropriate names and that in Geographical 
Descriptions a River is never made to extend farther than it 
carries its name; That there is as manifest a Distinction 
between a River and its Branches as there is between a Tree 
& its Branches, and that as the head of the Tree is properly 
the head of the Trunk or place where the Branches insert 
themselves so is the Head of the River the place where the 
Branches insert themselves and that the Mohawk & Popagh- 
tonk are confessedly and evidently Branches only and the 
Fish Kill or River with respect to them is the main Body or 
Trunk. 

(3.) That this Construction will not only give least Land 
to the Grantees but will also be attended with less doubt; for 
that if by the words Head of the River should be understood 
its source or that fountain by which its Stream is fed through 
a Branch flowing into it there are a variety of such heads. 
In this sense the source, spring or fountain of all the smaller 
streams having their proper Names & feeding the main Stream 
are equally heads of Fish Kill or River; That more especially 
as the Fish Kill or River divides itself into two Branches at 
the forks of Shewakin to wit the Mohawk or Cook-house & the 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 117 

Popaghtonk, the Sources of the two Streams are equally the 
Heads of the River; that the Popaghtonk is known to Divide 
itself into three Branches two main Streams & a smaller one 
[and] therefore in the Sense of our Opponents has three heads 
which according to their Reasoning are all heads of the Fish 
Kill or River; that the Cookhouse or Mohawk Branch may 
have as many or more the Country having not been sufficiently 
explored to determine that fact; That should the Case be 
otherwise our Opponents have furnished us with at least three 
heads of the River, which makes it necessary to confine the 
Boundary to the Forks of Shewakin to remove Doubts & pre- 
vent the Grant from being void. For as on the one hand if 
the doubt can be removed it must be construed as I have 
shewn most in favor of the Crown, so on the other if the doubt 
remains unsoluble the Grant must be null & void. 

But if the Construction which would confine them to the 
forks at Shewakin be rejected I insisted that nothing could 
justify their extending up to the Head of the Mohawk Branch — 
It is more than probable that in that early day when the patent 
was granted it was uncertain where the Head of the Fish Kill 
was in their Sense of the Word. The Grant therefore must 
have intended according to their Construction to give the 
Head of the Fish Kill wherever it might be as the Boundary. 
But in their sense of the Word the Fish Kill has several Heads 
and which to Chuse is the difficulty. That which gives most 
land I have clearly shown ought not to be adopted because 
it would be contrary to the clearest & most uncontrovertible 
Rules of Law, but on the contrary that and only that which 
gives Least to the Grantees must be received or all the Laws 
relating to Crown Grants must be rejected, and therefore if 
they should be permitted to extend Beyond the forks of Shew- 
akin they must still be confined to that head of the Fish Kill 
which will give them the least Land, which as I observed before 
must be the Head of the South Branch of the Popaghtonk. 
But my Lord if the Several Branches had then been explored 
to their respective Sources the Question still remains, which 
was the Head in the Sense of the Crown. The Answer I humbly 
conceive is, that head which will injure the Crown least and 
this too seems to be the most natural Construction from a 
View of the Maps because that head is the nearest to the Head 
of Cartwrights Kill & is so situated that a line extending from 
the one to the other nearly coincides with the Main Course of 
the Popaghtonk. 

But I further observed that should your Lordship and 
the Honorable Board be inclined to relax the Rules of 
Law in meer indulgence to our Opponents it would not rid 
them of their difficulties. That this indulgence could not be 



118 American Antiquarian Society. 

extended so far as to assign to them the Head of the Mohawk 
Branch as their Boundary, meerly because that will give them 
more Lands; That such an Indulgence could not with any 
Colour of Reason be expected from the Guardians of the Rights 
of the Crown; That the East Branch followed to its Source 
formed the Head of the River as much as the West Branch; 
That it would be absurd to distinguish that which was the 
most remote as the Head of the Fish Kill because that in their 
own Sense of the Word every Source of a river is its head be 
it more or less remote; That the words of the Grant are not 
to the most remote head but to the Head thereof, & That the 
East Branch if it be measured in its meanders is at least as 
long as the West Branch, And finally that should the River 
be deemed to head either at the forks at Shehawkin [sic] or 
at the Head of the South Branch of Popaghtonk, or even at 
the Head of its North Branch the Lands in Controversy will 
still remain vacant. 

I would beg Leave my Lord to add one thought more that 
has lately occurred to me. Where a Tract of Land is described 
as adjoining to a River as the Hardenbergh Tract evidently 
is, I believe even in a Grant from subject to subject it would 
be thought a very strange & unnatural Construction to extend 
it across one of its main Branches & yet such is the Construction 
[Grant to William Set up agaiust US in the present Case. Should 
Penn cited.] Wm. Peuu Or any of his descendants have put 

such a Construction on his Grant as to have extended it across 
the Mohawk & up to the Popaghtonk Branch, it would be 
thought by all the World to be an absurd Extension, and yet 
that Grant ought to be construed with the utmost Liberty 
as it issued not only as it is expressed of the Crowns special 
Grace, certain Knowledge & meer motion but expressly out 
of Regard to Memory & Merits of his late Father in divers 
Services & more particularly in Consideration of his Courage, 
Conduct & discretion under the Duke of York in that signal 
Battle & Victory fought & obtained ag^ the Dutch fleet com- 
manded by the Heer Van Opdam in the Year 1665^'^ 

In short my Lord if We consider the Words of the Grant 
[Interests of Crown without any Aid from without, which I humbly 
to be guarded.] couteud uiust ever be the rule when they are 
capable of their own Exposition as the Words of the Grant in 
Question undoubtedly are; if we Consider what Construction 
of them Reason would naturally dictate & if finally we apply 
the Rules of Law to them which demand such a Construction 
as is most for the Interest of the Crown, and cannot as I humbly 
conceive be dispensed with, all these conspire to prevent the 
Hardenbergh Tract from including the Lands between the 



'"Battle of Lowestoft June 3, 1665. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 119 

Popaghtonk & Mohawk branches & consequently leave Room 
for extending the Bounty of the Crown to Col. Bradstreet. 

We might indeed my Lord have relied on the Objections aris- 
ing from the Manner in which the Grant in Question was obtained 
& upon the Words of the Grant itself construed in a rational 
Sense & in Conformity to the known Rules of Law as amply 
sufficient to insure us a Victory. But in a Case of so much 
moment it [we?] thought it prudent to supererogate by adding 
some Collateral proof to fortify our Reasoning on the Subject. 

The Gentlemen in Support of The Patent observed that there 
were no recitals in it but of the petition on which it was grounded 
— That an Indian purchase is not necessary to make a Title 
at Law & that it is in no Case admissible as Evidence but to 
clear up doubts about Boundaries — I agree with the Gentle- 
men that by the Laws of England the Crown is the fountain 
of all Titles as well to Estates as to Honors & Offices; but I 
believe no Man of understanding ever meant to assert that 
this prerogative of the Crown was ever carried in the Ideas 
of Government to such a Length as to divest the aborigines 
of their natural Rights. The Government cannot be ignorant 
[Indian rights in that King Charles the Second issued his royal 
the premises.] proclamation whereby he asserted those Rights 
and forbade the Grant or Occupation of any Lands without 
an Indian purchase. Nay the very Idea aimed to be established 
by the Gent", who oppose us is that the Six Nations & the 
Mohicanders or River Indians have rendered themselves 
subjects to the Crown of Great Britain, which implies their 
protection in their person & Estate. — And upon a principle 
of protection has the Gov*, always acted towards them by 
making an Indian purchase necessary previous to the Grant 
of a patent. However true therefore it is that in a Court of 
Law an Indian purchase is not a necessary Link of Title it is 
as true that before this Honorable Board it ought to be con- 
sidered as the first Link and if the Bounds of a patent come 
into Question here, as our Opponents admit that in a Court 
of Law an Indian deed will serve to Explain Boundaries surely 
this Honorable Board will conceive that the apparent disparity 
between the Bounds of the Indian purchase made by License 
of Gov*. & the patent grounded on it furnishes the strongest 
Reason for construing the patent rigidly. . 

But my Lord it is not only clear that the Indian purchase 
on which the proprietors of Hardenberghs patent founded their 
patent does not include any Lands in the County of Albany 
nor across the East Branch of the Fish Kill, [but] We shewed 
from the most irrefragable Testimony that the proprietors of 
that patent never till of late Years conceived that it included 
any Lands between the East & West Branches. 



120 American Antiquarian Society. 

For this purpose we produced sundry pieces of Evidence." 
The first was a Treaty held with the Esopus Indians in whom 
the property of the Lands now in Controversy are pretended 
to have been vested. The preHminary measure to this Treaty 
was as we shewed an Order of certain Justices at Ivingston 
suggesting that Major Hardenbergh had complained that the 
Indians hindered the Running of the Outlines of the patent 
& appointing a day for the Treaty. At which day which was 
the 27*^. Aug*. 1743 the Treaty was accordingly held & among 
other Indians Sander their Chief Sachem & Hendrick Hegan 
were present. This Hendrick several of our Opponents say 
lived on the West side of the Popaghtonk Branch where he 
had an orchard. The very Cause of the Treaty appears to 
have been Hardenberghs Intention to run the out Lines of 
his patent; The Business was so opened to the Indians by 
Hardenbergh himself. He shews his Intention to have been 
to make a Survey of more Lands than he had ever purchased 
of the Indians, for he expressly informed them that he desired 
to run the out Lines of his patent to find out the true Owners 
of the Land and that after it was measured he would not take 
any Land without first agreeing with & paying the particular 
owner of each Tract. 

Is it possible M}^ Lord for a Man to have been more explicit 
than Hardenbergh was, or can any Thing be clearer than his 
design to run out the Boundaries of his patent in the full Extent 
of his Claim? And what such extent was is as e\ddent from 
the answer given to him bj^ the Indians. It was that he should 
have Liberty to Survey round the patent and up the River 
Papakonk [Popaghtonk?] and also to divide the Land, but 
not to Claim any Right to the Soil before a purchase of them; 
Had he then Intended to make the west Branch his Boundary 
he would have desired Leave to run up that Branch, he would 
have so expressed himself, And to this there could have been 
no Objection but the true one, a Want of property in the 
Esopus Indians, because he expressly disavowed a Claim of 
property to an}^ of the Lands before a purchase & the Indians 
as expressly stipulated ag*. such Claim until a purchase — 
Thus then my Lord it appears that Hardenbergh in a solemn 
Transaction extant of Record asserted the Popaghtonk or 
East Branch as his Boundary. 

[Survey of Henry This Treaty^" was in Consequence of a Survey 
worster 1743.] that had been attempted by Henry Worster 
a few days before [the treaty of Aug. 27, 1743] who from the 



*^ Fifteen lines of the original text have been erased at this point. The same 
argument being developed in the following lines the erasures are omitted. 

^^ Four lines of original text erased have been omitted at this point the argument 
being developed in the following lines. 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 121 

Testimony of Peter P. Low was the person employed for the 
purpose, and in this Attempt the Indians took away his Chain 
when he had got up the River as far as within ab*. 5 Miles of 
Papakonk [Popaghtonk] Village. Which chain the Witness 
declared he purchased from the Indians by Worster's directions. 
From the Testimony of this Witness therefore it appears clearly 
that in the first Attempt to make a Survey of the patent 
Worster ran up the East or Popaghtonk Branch. In Conse- 
quence of the 111 success of this Attempt the treaty was held 
at Kingston expressly grounded on a Complaint of Hardenbergh 
that the Indians had hindered the Surveyor appointed by the 
Prop'"*, of the patent from running the Outlines of the Tract. 
Thence it is evident that Hardenbergh esteemed the East Branch 
to be the outline of the patent, & in effect so asserted in his 
Complaint on which the Treaty was grounded, and it was 
accordingly expressly stipulated by that Treaty that the out- 
lines should be run & that the Indians should permit him to 
run up the Popaghtonk or East Branch. The work was 
accordingly performed a few days after by Worster; for [as] 
the same Witness Peter P. Low deposed — Worster informed 
him that the Indians had been invited to the Treaty at Esopus, 
That in a few days after Worster returned from Esopus & 
informed him that they had agreed with the Indians & that 
there would be no Danger in proceeding with the Survey, 
hired the Deponent as an Interpreter at 6 / per day & proceeded 
with him to the Papaconk [Popaghtonk] Village, That Worster 
left him there & went down the River ab* 5 Miles to the place 
where the Indians had stopped him & surveyed the out Line 
to Papaconck from thence to papataghan [Pakatakan?] & from 
thence to the head of the River & having there marked 2 or 
3 Trees they crossed over to the Head of Catrix Kill where 
Major Hardenbergh was waiting for them. What clearer proof 
there can be that the East Branch was then agreed to be the 
out Line of the patent is difficult my Lord to conceive, 
lother surveys in It appears from the E\idence that in the 
1745.] Year 1745 another Survey was made by Ebenezer 

Worster at which Time they stole the Opportunity of running 
across from the East to the West Branch but conscious 
that it was inconsistent with the Right of the patentees 
& the Sense of all the parties to the Indian Treaty they never 
attempted to survey down the West Branch & accordingly 
have not laid down that Branch in the Map which they gave 
in Evidence. After this Survey in which the Course of the 
Popaghtonk was run as the out Line of the patent, another 
Survey was made in 1745 by Order of the prop""*, at which 
Tho^. Nottingham was present. In this Survey which was 
performed by Ebenezer Worster they exactly followed the 



122 American Antiquarian Society. 

Line of the first Survey along the Popaghtonk Branch and up 
to its Northermost head passing by the River called the Tweed 
which ought to have been their True Bounds agreable to the 
Words of the Indian Treaty, that being naturally the Stream 
intended, not only on account of its Course directly towards 
but also its Approximation to the Head of Catrix Kill. On 
this Survey as Thomas Nottingham deposed they found several 
Monuments of Stones & marked Trees that had been before 
made by Henry Worster at the Time of his Survey in 1743 
and particularly at the Head of the North Branch of Popaghtonk 
and that Ebenezer Worster on this Survey did something 
towards a division of the patent into Lots & for that purpose 
made stone monuments & marked Trees as he went along. • 
That during this Survey they never attempted to cross the 
East Branch but at such places where its East Bank was so 
mountainous & steep as to be impassable & whenever this was 
not the Case they always kept their Survey on the East Side 
of the Branch. This scrupulous punctuality was indeed 
attempted to be accounted for by their fear of the Indians 
& not as proceeding from a Consciousness that their patent 
did not extend to the West Branch. But how far this pretence 
is well founded will appear from the above noticed Complaint 
of Hardenbergh & the Indian Treaty in Consequence of it on 
both which occasions he so effectually declared the Popaghtonk 
to be the out line of his patent. It is indeed rendered still 
more groundless by the Boundaries of their IncUan deed dated 
the 6th June 1746 near 3 Years after that Treaty. The Words 
of those Boundaries are as follows: Beginning at Papaconk 
at the River & running down the said River as far as to the 
Bounds of the ^^Cashiktonk [Cashietonk?] Indians including 
half the River & half the Islands as far as aforesaid, then along 
the Bounds of the Lands of Cashiktonk Indians to the Bounds 
of Rochester patent, then beginning again at Papakonk af^. 
& running up said River including half the River & half the 
Islands as af*^. to Pakatakan & so up to the head thereof, from 
thence with a streight Line to the Head of Catrix Kill &ca the 
Mohawks Claim excepted. This deed evidently pursues the 
Words of the Indian Treaty with the utmost precision, and 
was doubtless procured in Consequence of the Stipulation 
contained in that Treaty that notwithstanding the permission 
thereby given to Hardenbergh & his fellow proprietors 
to survey up the Popaghtonk Branch as the Outline of 
their patent they should not presume to claim any Lands 
comprehended within it which they had not bought of the 
Indians. 

^'This Indian name occurs in various spellings the one within the brackets being 
perhaps the most approved. See: post p. 171. 



Tlie CoL John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 123 

It is further observable my Lord that in this Deed the Mo- 
hawks Claim is excepted. What this Claim could possibly be 
but the Right of the Mohawks extending to the East Bank of 
the East Branch we cannot conceive because it was never 
pretended that a Line from the Head of that Branch to the 
Head of Catrix Kill would include any Land belonging to the 
Mohawks on any other Supposition, unless it be that which 
we urged in the Opening Argument that all the Lands possessed 
by the River Indians belonged to the Mohawks by right of 
Conquest. 

But it is further Remarkable that this East Branch is declared 
in the Indian deed to be the River contrary to the present 
attempt of our Opponents to make the West Branch pass for 
the River, — and this remark is strengthened by another Indian 
deed procured by the patentees only two Months after the 
one just noticed. It is dated the 2d August 1746, is for a 
tract lower Down the River or to the Southward of the other 
Tract. It was obtained of the Kashightonk [Cashietonk?] 
& Minisink Indians, begins at the Great Yagh House and with 
a Course W. & by North strikes the Fish Kill or Main Branch 
of Delaware River & after crossing it four Miles runs parallel 
with it as far as the Cashightonk or Minisink Indians Right 
or Claim extended & then runs easterly to the late purchase 
of the Esopus Indians bearing Date the 6th June 1746 on the 
said River. But that purchase is evidently bounded on 
Popaghtonk. Therefore those two Deeds compared together 
demonstrate that the Popaghtonk was in the Estimation of 
Major Hardenbergh who was one of the patentees & M'' Living- 
ston who was a purchaser under a patentee and 57 Minisink 
Cashightonk & Esopus Indians the Fish Kill or main Branch 
of Delaware River and consequently serve in conjunction with 
Hardenbergh's Complaint, and the Indian Treaty entered into 
with Hardenbergh in consequence of that Complaint, to dem- 
onstrate that the Intention of the Crown & the patentees in 
the Words by which the Tract is described to run up the Fish 
Kill or River to the Head thereof was that the Tract was to 
run to the Head of the Popaghtonk Branch. 

Indeed so clear & conclusive is this Evidence arising from 
the Complaint of Hardenbergh, the Treaty to which that 
Complaint gave Birth & the two Indian deeds all clearly expres- 
sive that the Popaghtonk was the out Line of the patent that 
no doubt can possibly remain on the Subject. 

We shall therefore my Lord for Brevity Sake. waive observing 
either on the other Evidence offered by us to prove that the 
Lands between the two Branches belonged to the Mohawks 
or on the two Certificates of Doctor Shucksburgh [Richard 
Shuckburgh] relative to Gov"". [William] Cosby's Mine to prove 



124 American Antiquarian Society. 

the Lands between the two Branches were vacant, or on the 
several patents which have been granted by the Crown all 
which are incompatible with the Supposition that the West 
Branch is the Boundary of the patent now under Consideration 
& proceed to a short Survey of what has been offered by our 
Opponents in proof of that point. 

The first fact they Relied on was that one [Jacob] Rutsen 

on the 3P* July 1706 made a purchase of the 
by^'m>onJnrs°^ ludiaus of suudry small pieces of Land between 
S"i706 3^""'''''^ the East & West Branches & besides those of 

a particular Spot on the West Side of the West 
Branch called Akanunkapunk. Great pains were taken 
to ascertain the Location of this same Akanunkapunk by 
the Testimony of Mr. [William] Cockburn & others. But 
my Lord it was obvious at the Time that Evidence and 
the Affidavit of Rutsen 's Son [John?] to support it were 
produced that this purchase was made without a License 
for the purpose, & tho' from the Sons Affida\'it it appears the 
father had declared that he was to have been a patentee & 
was unjustly deprived of his Right, yet certain it is that nothing 
can be concluded from any Evidence that has been offered 
that this purchase was made with an Intent to ground the 
patent on it. Those who know the Disposition of Indians 
know also that they may for the most trifling Recompense 
be prevailed on to sell Lands that do not belong to them, 
tho' they are extreamly apt to hold their indubitable property 
at a high price. The Supposition is further exploded by every 
Step taken towards obtaining the patent in all which this 
unlicensed purchase is utterly disregarded. And as a proof 
how much our Opponents are put to their Shifts I shall only 
remark that Col. Hardenbergh the Gent°. who produces this 
Evidence has thought it necessary to prove that his father 
one of the patentees & thereby Agent in procuring the patent 
that was known to the Gov*, was accessory to a manifest 
Wrong done to Rutsen. 

[Indian Deed Another Indian deed dated the 3 June 1751 was 
^'''^^•^ produced ag*. us; but for what valuable purpose 

I cannot conceive. It was however evidently obtained to 
facilitate their present Claim & to Extend their Tract to the 
West Branch & is in Substance a Grant of the Lands between 
the two Branches. It would appear very extraordinary my 
Lord if this deed should have any weight in the Controversy, 
obtained as it was near half a Century after the patent issued 
and evidently after the proprietors had formed the Scheme 
of extending their patent beyond its original Bounds contrary 
to the most solemn, express & repeated Acts to which they 
were parties. To what an enormous Extent patents will 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 125 

grow if the proprs. are permitted to explain their Bounds by 
Indian deeds taken near fifty years after their dates, Your 
Lordship & this Honorable Board will readily conceive. In 
proportion as Lands rise in Value such Deeds which can always 
be procured at the Expense of a few Gallons of Spirits will 
multiply & descendants from the first patentees will by such 
means be able to reap at the Expense & to the prejudice of 
the Crown what their forefathers never sowed. 

But there is indeed a most cogent Reason why if that Indian 
deed is to receive any Notice it ought to operate so strongly agt. 
our Opponents as to give us the full enjoyment of all We expect. 
Your Lordship & every Member of this Honorable Board 
must perfectly remember that the Instrument ushered in as 
the Indian Deed contained Many sheets of paper, that I request- 
ed the Whole should be read, that my request was answered 
by a Declaration from the Mouth of one of the Counsel for our 
Opponents that I should have the Sight of the Instrument & 
make what Use of it I thought proper, I accordingly applied 
for it, my Application was indeed backed with the respectable 
Weight of Government, But what did all this avail? Neither 
the Justice of the Request nor the possitive promise of our 
Opponents nor even the Authority of Gov*, has been sufficient 
to command its production. On the contrary a single sheet 
of paper has been lodged in the Hands of Mr. Deputy Secretary 
instead of that voluminous Instrum*. & of which I have not 
asked a Sight, because it was not the paper given in Evidence. 
But why permit me to ask it my Lord, why this strange & 
unprecedented Concealmt? Is it not a maxim that the whole 
Contents of every written Evidence shall be read if required? 
Why do our Courts of Justice daily determine that where a 
Deed is proved by a party to be in the Hands of his Opponent 
the strongest Argument is furnished ag*. him by its non pro- 
duction? Is not the Reason evidently this my Lord that he 
would produce it did not the whole Instrumt. taken together 
strongly operate agt. him. Concealed Weapons not only beget 
Jealousy but are productive of Danger, and he who wears them 
is strongly to be suspected of a Design to make a most improper 
use of them. I flatter myself therefore as I appeal to the 
Honor & Dignity of Govt, that this concealed Instrument will 
not only be taken from our Opponents; I trust that its point 
will by the Hand of the Govt, be turned agt. them and that 
were there no other Reason for it, your Lordship & this Honble 
Board to do us full Justice & discountenance so dangerous 
a proceeding will favor us with a Grant of the prayer of our 
petition, which I would only hint my Lord may be done con- 
sistent with the strictest Justice as a Grant to Us cannot divest 
our Opponents of a single Iota of their Right. 



126 American Antiquarian Society. 

But to pass my Lord from a piece of Evidence so disagreably 
circumstanced with one single reflexion more — I would beg Leave 
to observe that this piece of Evidence obtained without a License 
to purchase & to give Colour to the Enlargment of the Bounds of 
their patent is it seems Urged as an Argument of preference 
in their favor to our Indian Deed obtained at the Treaty with 
the Six Nations at which Sir Henry Moore, Sir Wm. Johnson 
& several other Gentn. of the first Rank were present & obtained 
too by the immediate Agency of Sir Henry Moore with the 
Knowledge of Sir Wm. & in exact conformity with the royal 
proclamation. But how unequal the Competition between 
this Deed thus regularly obtained & the other procured from 
vagrant Indians to serve the purposes of Countenancing an 
undue extension of the bounds of a patent issued near 50 years 
before, I need not mention. 

The next piece of Evidence offered by our Opponents will 
not I flatter myself weigh a single Grain in the Scale of Evidence. 
It is composed of Sir Henry Moore's appointmt. of Mr. [Simeon?] 
rL'ne of Indian ^^tcalf to ruu the Line of Cession agreed to by the 
Cession as run by Six Nations at the above mentioned Treaty and 
Mr. Metcaif.] ^jg q^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^,^^ ^^^ Lj^g Rgreable to that 

appointment. And the only fact colligible from this Evidence 
is that Sir Henry Moore in the Construction of that Cession 
considered the West Branch as Delaware River — Agreed my 
Lord. 

But it is ob\aous that the late Go\t. who besides his good 
Sense had a just Knowledge of the Geography of the province 
knew that the Fish Kill or Main Branch of Delaware divides 
itself into two principal Branches the Popaghtonk & the 
Mohawk Branch. That this River being by the Indian Cession 
made part of the Boundary of the Lands ceded to the Crown 
it was fit & right for him to direct that Branch which would 
give the Cession the most Beneficial Operation for the Crown 
to be observed as the Boundary and accordingly he directed 
the Surveyor (without any distinction between the Delaware 
& its Branches) to begin his Survey where a due East Line 
from Owego strikes Delaware & to extend it up the River till 
opposite to where Tienonderah falls into the Susquehannah 
thereby fixing the West branch for the purpose of that Survey 
to be Delaware river as intended by the Cession. But surely 
my Lord When Delaware River & its branches are thus com- 
plexly considered, from the preference given by Sir Henry 
Moore to the West Branch it can never be esteemed that the 
Govt, near sixty years before & upon another subject, & agt. 
the most solemn Acts & express Declarations of Our Opponents 
intended to fix the West Branch as the Bounds of their patent. 
When a Tree and its Branches are complexly mentioned every 



The Col, John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 127 

Branch is the Tree but when a Distinction between the Tree 
& its Branches is taken up the Construction is vastly different. 
In our Case the Fish Kill was evidently considered as the 
Main Branch of Delaware River & the Popaghtonk Branch 
was as evidently a Continuation of that Main Branch in the 
Sense of our Opponents — 

If my Lord we weigh the Testimony of Jacobus Bruyn in the 
Scale of Evidence it will like Beltshasar tried in a more awful 
Balance be found wanting. In short it is much of the kind 
with that administered by Sir Henry Moore's Commission to 
Mr. Metcalf for it proves no more for our Opponents than 
that Mr. Bruyn was surveying Lands many years ago, on the 
West Side of the West Branch & that in pursuing his Survey 
Downward he struck upon a Branch (doubtless the West 
Branch) which he concluded to be Delaware River because 
(& for a very good Reason too) the Fish of passage came a 
great Way up that stream. But this certainly proves no more 
than that the West Branch was one of the Waters of Delaware 
as it unquestionably is, and so as undoubtedly is the East 
Branch and therefore from this Reason only without mention- 
ing more, may as properly as the other be called the Delaware 
River. When such a monstrous Fabric is built upon so slender 
a Basis it may well be said — Dehile fundamentum fallit opus. 

But my Lord we have other Evidence administered by our 
Opponents still more curious than this — Nothing 
tiorf among ciafm- Icss in Truth than their own deeds of partition 
denberg"h Pat^nT] ^^ which it appears that they had di\ided the 
Lands between the Two Branches among them — I 
have often heard that a Mans own Words and Actions were the 
highest possible evidence agt. him; but it is to me a doctrine 
entirely new & adjusted to the Latitude of this patent only that a 
division of Lands between a Number of persons should be 
evidence of their Right to them, Nay what is more Absurd 
that such Division should so operate even agt. their own most 
solemn Acts. I hope this Doctrine will not become fashionable. 
Should it grow into general Taste there would be an End to 
all further Grants of the Crown Lands for what Company of 
Land Jobbers would submit to the Expense of patent fees 
and the never ending Quit Rent of '^/q Sterling per hundred 
Acres, to procure a Title to the Lands of the Crown adjoining 
to their property when a common Scrivner at the Trifling 
Expense of five pounds could by the Manoeuvres of the pen 
vest them in full propriety with all the neighboring Territory. 
Besides what horrible Confusion of private property would 
ensue upon this principle; partition agt. partition would con- 
found all the Bounds of Right and be the Source of endless 
Litigation profitable to be sure to the Men of our profession 



128 American Antiquarian Society. 

but never to be ■wished for by those of us who are Friends to 
justice, order, decency & regularity in civil Life. I cannot 
therefore my Lord but admire at the Attempt of our Opponents 
to avail themselves of a piece of Evidence so dangerous in 
precedent, in itself as light as Air & relied upon agt. their own 
solemn Acts as a proof of the Extent of their patent to the 
West Branch of the Fish Kill. 

But my Lord my surprise is increased when I find this piece 
of Evidence attended with an Act of their Surveyor & Servant. 
It is his Map of the patent which on its face carries the strongest 
Evidences agt. them. How strangely inconsistent is our 
Conduct when the Love of property is our principle of Action. 
Sanguine in our pursuits, everything carries with it demonstra- 
tion in our favor. Utterly blind to the apparent Inconsisten- 
cies of Evidence we fancy a beautiful Harmony, a rational 
Consistency & Co-operation reigns through all the parts of 
our proof. These unnaturally blended together by the Heat 
of passion form to our View an engaging picture while to others 
less prejudiced the piece appears grotesque indeed and truly 
verifies the observations of the elegant Roman poet — Spectatum 
admissi risum teneatis Amid. 

[Ma of 1749 1 '^^^^ -^^^P exhibits to your Lordship the following 
Matters of fact. On the face of it we see no 
delineation of the West Branch of the Fish Kill & the Lines 
of division of the Lands hdng to the Eastward of the East 
Branch tho' continued across it towards the West Branch 
remain unfinished and are not butted by any Object. This 
res infecta which however proves no more than a design of the 
parties to appropriate to themselves were it possible the Lands 
between the two Branches appears to be a compleat Actual 
Survey & Allotment of the Lands on the East Side of the East 
Branch. This Map is dated NoV. 8*^^. 1749 41 Years after 
the date of the patent & before the Settlemt. & improvemt. 
of any part of it. It speaks of itself as made at the Request 
of Mr. Robert Livingston & Gulian Verplan [c] k & Company 
and as being a survey and division of the Tract of Land 
called Hardenbergh's or the Great patent. It imports that 
the actual Survey was began on the 7th April 1749 & finished 
the 8th of Nov"", following which is the day of its date. The 
Surveyor annexed to it a field Book containing a description 
of the Lands & form of the Mountains & of the Monuments 
& remarkable places near which they are placed but all this 
appears to relate only to the Lands on the East Side of the 
East Branch. What evidence then can this Map furnish for 
our Opponents but that it is an actual survey of those Lands 
& [an] unfinished attempt to appropriate by a random allot- 
ment the Lands between the two branches. Nay there is not 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 129 

the least syllable inscribed on it to shew that it was intended 
as an actual Allotment of the Lands between the two Branches. 
On the contrary the whole description in the field Book relates 
entirely to the Lands on the East Side of the East Branch, 
For when the Surveyor after having described his several 
Courses & Monuments from the Bounds of Minisink patent on 
the Fish Kill or Main branch of Delaware River many miles 
below the forks of "Shehawkin proceeds to ascertain the 4th 
Monument he describes it thus "At the End of those Courses 
we placed the 4th Monument on a piece of low land full of 
Timber, a heap of Stones with a flat Stone standing on the 
Top marked No. 4 by a Butternut Tree marked with a Cross 
& No. 4 & four Notches." This Monument stands abt. 2 
Chains from the River & 18 Chains to the Southward of the 
[Popaghtonk] or Branch or Crook of the River. Here it seems 
the Surveyor did not even dream of the West Branch as having 
any relation to his Survey but calls the Popaghtonk or East 
Branch simply the Branch or Crook of the River. He then 
proceeds and describes the 5th Monument to be at little dis- 
tance up the papghtakan [sic] Branch, the sixth further up 
the said Branch the seventh at Popatonck Indian Village on 
the East Side which together with their Indian Treaty in 1743 
& their two Indian Deeds in 1746 shews that Popakonk was 
not on the West Side of the Popaghtonk Branch as they have 
attempted to make appear in Evidence. The surveyor then 
proceeds to describe his Courses and Monuments up to the 
Head of the North Branch of the Popaghkonk & when he 
comes to the 12th Monument at Paghatakan Village he takes 
Notice of a large River coming from the East which is the River 
Tweed the Head of which is doubtless the true Boundary 
intended by the patent should it be tho't proper to admit of an 
Extension beyond the forks at Shehawkin. 

The 17th & last Monument on the East Side of the Popagh- 
tonk he described thus "At the End of all those Courses We 
came to the head of Paghatakan Branch where we made the 
17th Monument At the old Corner hounds made by Henry 
Worster." Which old Corner Bounds Ebenezer Worster says 
is a Spruce-pine Tree that had been made by Henry Worster 
marked with No. 3 & a cross & several other Spruce Trees 
m-arked standing by, Where says Ebenezer Worster We made 
a large Monument of Stone & marked a Flat one on the Top 
with No. 17 and a cross & 17 Notches. This Monument stands 
by a Swampside towards the upper End of the Swamp. The 
Swamp is about 4 Chains wide & near two miles long & is 
between two high mountains. Against the upper end of the 
mountains the monumt. stands. Thus it appears that Ebenezer 

^^ Earlier in the Manuscript this river is called the Shewakin. Ante p. 164. 



130 American Antiquarian Society. 

Worster the very person employed in the final Survey & in the 
Allotment of the Tract in order to a partition well knew and 
performed his Work under a Sense that the Popaghtonk Branch 
was the true Boundary of the patent, for what my Lord could 
he in any other View possibly mean by calling the placing 
where he fixed his 17th Monument the old Corner Bounds of 
Henry Worster, which evidently was the Corner Bounds made 
by him when Peter P. Low in the year 1743 attended him in 
his Survey up to the Popaghtonk to its head where Ebenezer 
Worster's 17th Monument is fixed and from thence across to 
the Head of Cartrix Kill. It is notorious that Henry Worster 
never attempted in his survey to make an Allotment in order 
to a decision of the Tract. He did no more than run two of 
the Outlines of the patent in Exact conformity with the Indian 
Treaty. In doing this he made his old Corner Bounds at the 
North head of the Popaghtonk which was Numbered 3 the 
first probably being at the Bounds of Minisink patent and the 
second at the Forks of Shewakin. And thus does this very 
Map of Ebenezer Worster which was made the foundation for 
a random division of the Lands between the two Branches 
appear clearly to correspond with the most natural Construction 
of the Words of the patent and the Sense of the original paten- 
tees discovered in Hardenbergh's Complaint to the Justice 
of Kingston ag*. the Indians for obstructing them in their 
Survey of the outlines of their patent in his Request of a per- 
mission from the Indians to run those outlines, their stipulation 
at the Treaty to permit him to run up the Popaghtonk as one 
of those uplines, the running of it by Worster in Consequence 
of that Treaty, & in the two Indian deeds to Hardenbergh & 
Company obtained after that Treaty. In Short my Lord, 
Ebenezer Worster's Map mentions not a syllable either of the 
West Branch or the Lands between the two Branches, & con- 
tains no Delineation of those Lands or of the West Branch. It 
appears to be properly & only a Survey of the Lands lying on 
the East side of the Popaghtonk. Of which [survey] the 
present proprietors have availed themselves by an Extension 
of the Lines of Allotment of those Lands so as to make a random 
Di\asion of the Lands between the two Branches, on a supposed 
right which they never avowed but by their deed of partition 
executed between them above 40 years after the date of the 
patent & contrary to the their own prior & solemn declared 
sense in their Complaints, Treaties, Indian deeds & Surveys. 
Had the Evidence been closed here on the former Hearing 
the Ballance would have stood Thus; On our Side the natural 
Construct[ion] of the patent itself, supported by solemn Action 
of the parties, a public Treaty with the Indians in the presence 
of a general meeting of the Magistrates, two Indian purchases 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 131 

clearly explanatory of Our Opponents Sense of the Bounds & 
repeated Surveys, all corresponding with those other pieces 
of E\adence; On their side only one insidious attempt by 
Ebenezer Worster in his last survey to make a survey down the 
West Branch, & a random partition of the Lands between the 
two Branches made without actual Survey & at the distance 
of upwards of 40 years after their patent issued. Which way 
upon this state of Evidence, the Ballance would preponderate 
they clearly saw. To cast therefore a little more Weight on their 
side of the scale they were prepared in the sundry ^AJffidavits 
wearing the most suspicious Marks of Fraud which need not 
now be enumerated as their untoward appearance occasioned 
their total rejection, and this rejection the Opportunity of 
examining Witnesses ore tenus at this day on a single point of 
fact. But my Lord before I proceed to weigh this part of the 
Evidence I beg leave to observe (1) that if the persons^^ whose 
names were subscribed to those Affidavits really did swear 
to them, their Testimony even had it now come up to what 
they before swore would be much lessened in point of Credit 
because a regard to their Reputation would in some Measure 
oblige them to observe a consistency. 

2dly That their Testimony depending on their ^Memories 
ought not to have equal Credit with the clear written Testimony 
on our part, especially as 

3dly Their Testimony to have full Weight ought to go 
back to the Date of the patent which is upwards of 60 years 
old & this is absolutely impossible & 

4thl3^ because what they swear to can only be Matter of 
Information of a much later date furnished to them by Indians, 
whose Integrity is too weak to resist a Bribe, and we have proof 
that the Proprs. of the patent in Question have had it in Con- 
templation for many years past agt. their own most public, 
solemn & repeated [acts], to claim the Lands between the two forks 
which could only be performed by gi\"ing the name of the Fish 
Edll or Main Branch of Delaware River to the Mohawk Branch. 

Under the influence of those observations I proceed as sum- 
marily as is possible to remark on the oral Testimonv of this 
day^''.' 

[Summary of argu- ^he Sum of this iniportant controversy my 

ment for Col. Lord wc take to be this. On our part we have 

ra street.j been at the Expense of an Indian purchase 

regularly made of one of the Six Nations, whose property 



"The names of Peter Kuydendal and Jacob Westfall are given in the margin 
at this point and appear to be the names of the witnesses testifying. 

** A page of the manuscript is left vacant at this point to call the attention of 
the attorney to the oral testimony which may be submitted. He then summarizes 
his argument for Bradstreet. 



132 American Antiquarian Society. 

we say the Lands in Controversy originally were. Our 
opponents claim a Right to them solely by patent & Indian 
purchases made near forty years after their patent, While 
it has been the invariable practice of the Govt, to make an 
Indian purchase precede a patent. We found the propriety 
of^our Indian purchase upon a clear admission by deed of the 
Indians of whom they purchased, that the lands between the 
two Branches Belonged to the Mohawks, (2) On the known 
History of the Country, & on public Treaties all which shew 
clearly that the victorious Confederate Nations with the Mo- 
hawks at their Head have gained all the original property of 
the River Indians by Right of Conquest & that it was customary 
for the Conquerors to permit the Conquered to remain their 
Tenants at will but especially denied them the priviledge of 
Sale. On their part they have only shewn that the Indians or 
some of them of whom they purchased had merely a Residence 
on the Lands in Controversy and this Residence is not only 
consistent with tlie Supposition of the Right of Property in 
other Conquerors but can furnish no Argument that is not 
utterly annihilated by the express allowance in their deed of 
the Right of the Mohawks notwithstanding their Sale. And 
even were the two Indian Rights doubtful we have the Counte- 
nance of Govt, in a purchase regularly made by us at a great 
Expense to entitle to a preference. 

Again tho' our Opponents ground their Claim of present 
Title solely on their patent we have shewn that this patent in 
the manner in which it was obtained was so irregular & unau- 
thorized if not fraudulent as to be null & void, or at least to be 
justly subject from its Suspicious Circumstances to the most 
rigid Construction. That were it otherwise circumstanced 
our Construction of the Words of the patent would be confirmed 
by the Clearest Rules of Law which manifestly require that 
every patent granted upon the suggestion & petition of the 
party shall be construed most favorably for the Crown, that 
the Fish Kill is the Main Branch of the River below the forks 
of Shewakin, that at this place it divides itself into two Branches 
the West Commonly called the Mohawk or Cookhouse Sepoos, 
and Machach Sepoos, the East the Papataghan or Popaghtonk 
Sepoos. That therefore the Head of the Fishkill is properly 
at the forks of Shewakin which Construction is most favorable 
to the Crown. That should a less favorable Construction be 
adopted, the Fishkill will then appear to have several heads, 
that the East Branch consists of a union of three large Streams 
the North Branch, the River Tweed & the Beaver Kill, that 
tho its most distant Source is not quite so northerly as that 
of the West Branch j^et not only from our Testimon}^ but also 
from that of Mr Cockburn whom our Opponents sent up to 



The Col. John Bradstreet Manuscripts. 133 

make the Experiment the East Branch is larger swifter & dis- 
charges more water into the Main Body. That the Words of 
the patent "to the Head thereof" does not say which Head 
& it has several, if the forks at Shehawkin is not the proper 
Head. That therefore the most favorable construction for 
the Crown if we are to quit those forks will be furnished by the 
Head of the Tweed, that even should not tlie Crown be so favored 
yet the most northerly source of the East Branch, which Leaves 
all the Lands in Controversy vacant ought undoubtedly to 
be the Boundary. That this last Construction falls in with 
the clearest Weight of Evidence from without, & besides other 
proof, with their Indian Treaty their two Indian Deeds, their 
repeated Surveys and particularly their Map of the last Survey, 
& with their full & declared Sense & Construction for at least 
forty years after the date of their patent. 

To stem all this Torrent of Evidence they have opposed 
nothing more than one attempt by Ebenezer Worster in his 
last survey to make a stolen survey of the West Branch contrary 
to the parts of the Treaty entered into with the Indians in 
presence of a large Assembly of Magistrates; their random 
partition after all those Transactions, which in itself is not 
Evidence, & finally the parol, [i. e., verbal] Testimony of some 
Witnesses speaking from their Memory about facts gained 
only on Hearsay & of much later date than the patent and 
probably gained entirely either directly or indirectly from 
Indians whose words are of little Weight & who may have been, 
as they all on any occasion may be, bribed to propagate forged 
names of places to Suit the Designs of a party; and finally as 
this lose [loose] heresay & uncertain Evidence stands opposed 
to the natural face of the Country, the Testimony of other 
Witnesses, the Words of the patent in the legal Construction, 
and a train of solemn public & notorious facts furnished by 
our Opponents & most of them standing on Record as a lasting 
Memorial of their Truth we flatter ourselves that the Ballance 
of evidence is clearly in our favor & if so, as the most liberal 
Construction that can be given to the patent in Question will 
confine our Opponents to the northern most head of the Pop- 
aghtonk Branch in which Case the Lands in Controversy must 
be vacant. We humbly pray that we may be favored with 
his Majesty's Letters patent for them upon the usual Terms 
& Conditions. 



x>' -s>. 



%- " 



Naj^^y-a*' s, ^ \. 



<^0^ 



.0 ^ 



,0 o. 






.00^ 






.0 o- 



•n^ V 



x^^ '^ 



'^^^ v^' 



,H V , 



.^:^^ "■'■>. 



'-.. £ 



n^ y^ 




009 544 466 



